Un)  9   1922      *! 


BV    811    .M33A 

McGlothlin,  William  Joseph, 

1867-1933. 
Infant-baptism 


HISTORICALLY  CONSIDERED 


Die  Wal)r^cil  isl  unlo6tlicl) 
— Hubmcier 

(13^6  trutt)  is  immortal) 


^J.Mc( 


W.  J.  McGLOTHLIN.  D.D..  LL.  D. 

Professor  o£  Church  History, 
Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary- 


Price:  60  Centa 


Sunday  School  Board,  Southern  Baptist  Convention 
Nashville,  Tennessee 


Copyrigkted 

by  Sunday  School  Board,  Southern 

Baptist  Con-vention. 

1916. 


l!)c  5tlemorY  of  tl)c  faill)ful  Witnesses 

w^o  l)ave 

live6  anb  labored  anb  suffered 

for  t^e 

establishment  of  spiritual  religion 

in  tl)e  eartl) 

t^is  volume  is  reverently 

6e6icate6. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  pages  have  been  written  in  the  inter- 
est of  spiritual  religion  and  the  evangelical  faith.  Years 
spent  in  the  study  and  teaching  of  church  history  have 
forced  the  conviction  that  infant-baptism,  taken  as  a 
whole  and  throughout  its  history,  has  been  the  most 
serious  departure  from  apostolic  Christianity  and  evan- 
gelical faith  that  the  world  has  to  show.  It  has  been 
the  open  door  through  which  most  of  the  errors  and 
evils  which  have  ajfiflicted  the  kingdom  of  Christ  on 
earth  have  poured  in.  The  whole  character  of  Chris- 
tian history  would  certainly  have  been  very  different 
had  faith-baptism  been  preserved  inviolate.  Sacra- 
mental salvation,  compulsion  of  conscience,  bloody  per- 
secution and  union  of  Church  and  State,  would  have 
been  impossible.  Its  abandonment  today  would  abolish 
sacramental  salvation  with  all  the  churches  that  sup- 
port this  faith,  would  give  an  immeasurable  impulse  to 
evangelical  faith  and  do  more  to  unite  the  Christians 
of  the  world  in  the  bonds  of  genuine  spiritual  fellow- 
ship and  fraternity  than  all  other  possible  changes. 
Varying  views  of  the  significance  of  infant-baptism  is 
the  chief  cause  of  division  among  the  pedobaptists 
themselves ;  its  practice  is  the  chief  barrier  between  Bap- 
tists and  evangelical  pedobaptists. 

The  work  has  been  written  with  the  full  consciousness 
that  there  is  much  difference  between  the  conceptions 
of  infant-baptism  as  held  and  practiced  by  Catholics 
and  evangelical  Protestants,  but  with  a  very  firm  con- 
viction of  the  evils  and  dangers  as  pr^acticed  among 
th€  latter.  The  author  cherishes  nothing  but  kindly 
feelings  for  his  pedobaptist  brethren  and  has  sought  to 
avoid  in  these  pages  any  expression  that  would  wound 
or  offend  reasonable  people.  He  has  written  as  plainly 
and  as  forcibly  as  his  powers  would  permit,  with  the 
hope  that  pedobaptists  may  understand  the  feelings  of 
the  Baptists  more  fully  and  that  some  pedobaptists  may 
be  led  to  consider  afresh  their  own  duty  in  the  prem- 
ises. Withal,  it  may  lead  some  Baptists  to  understand 
more  fully  the  security  and  importance  of  their  own 
position  and  the  seriousness  of  the  dangers  that  lurk 
in  infant-baptism.  W.  J.  M. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  Christmas,  1915. 

(4) 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introduction  by  President  Mullins 6 

I.    Infant-Baptism  in  the  World 9 

II.   The  Baptist  View  of  Baptism 18 

III.  Infant-Baptism  and  the  Scriptures 28 

IV.  Infant-Baptism    and    the    Scriptures  —  Con- 

tinued     39 

V.    Infant-Baptism  Appears  at  End    of    Second 

Century 49 

VI.    Infant-Baptism  Slowly  Gains  Ground 6^ 

VII.    Infant-Baptism    Triumphant    Through    Bap- 
tismal Regeneration 75 

VIII.    The  Reformation— Martin  Luther 86 

IX.   The  Reformation — Zwingli  and  Calvin 92 

X.    Reformation  and  Revival  in  England 100 

XI.    The  Growth  of  Anti-Pedobaptist  Sentiment.  .109 
XII.   The    Child    and    the    Kingdom  — The    New 

Pelagianism 121 

XIII.  Forces  Operating  for  Faith-Baptism 140 

XIV.  Modern  Pedobaptist  Scholarship 152 

XV.   The  Outlook  for  Faith-Baptism 166 

(6) 


INTRODUCTION, 


There  have  been,  among  others,  two  marked  ten- 
dencies in  the  history  of  Christianity  which  have  been 
productive  of  evil.  One  has  been  the  tendency  to  over- 
estimate the  ceremonial  elements,  and  the  other  to 
underestimate  them.  Because  of  their  strenuous  ad- 
herence to  immersion  as  the  form  prescribed  in  the  New 
Testament  for  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Baptists  have 
often  been  misunderstood  as  champions  of  the  cere- 
monial as  contrasted  with  the  spiritual  elements  of  the 
gospel.  Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  truth  than 
this  estimate  of  Baptists.  They  have  indeed  expended 
much  effort  in  maintaining  the  two  ordinances  of  the 
New  Testament  church.  But  their  aim  has  been  always 
to  preserve  the  spirituality  of  the  gospel,  not  to  lose 
sight  of  it  in  the  advocacy  of  forms  and  ceremonies. 
The  amount  of  time  and  thought  expended  upon  the 
latter  has  been  no  greater  than  the  tendency  to  over- 
estimate them  or  pervert  their  meaning  on  the  part  of 
others. 

Baptists  have,  indeed,  in  a  very  peculiar  sense,  felt 
themselves  called  to  maintain  the  purity  and  spirituality 
of  the  New  Testament  Christianity.  Their  sense  of  the 
call  to  this  work  has  been  manifest  in  nothing  more 
clearly  than  in  their  effort  to  define  the  ceremonial  ele- 
ments of  Christianity  in  relation  to  the  spiritual. 
Human  nature  is  almost  incorrigibly  devoted  to  the 
outward  aspects  of  religion  until  it  has  become  suffi- 
ciently spiritualized  to  penetrate  to  the  heart  and  grasp 
the  central  realities.  One  needs  only  to  recall  the 
Roman  Catholic  perversion  of  a  simple  metaphor  of 
Jesus  into  the  doctrine  of  the  "real  presence,"  It  would 
seem  that  an  elementary  knowledge  of  the  principles  of 
rhetoric  would  have  prevented  so  palpable  an  error  of 
interpretation.  But  unspiritual  human  nature  seized 
(6) 


Introduction.  7 

upon  the  literal  meaning  and  converted  it  into  a  stu- 
pendous and  far-reaching  perversion  of  the  funda- 
mentals of  the  gospel.  It  became  thus  a  striking  ex- 
ample of  the  perils  which  arise  out  of  apparently  small 
deviations  from  a  spiritual  faith. 

It  is  in  view  of  facts  of  this  kind  that  Baptists  have 
been  the  religious  radicals  among  the  various  denomi- 
nations. They  have  seen  with  great  vividness  and 
clearness  of  outline  the  central  spiritual  elements  of 
Christianity.  With  a  like  vividness  and  clearness  they 
have  perceived  the  significance  of  the  outward  forms. 
For  them  it  has  seemed  as  if  the  very  life  of  Christianity 
depended  upon  keeping  the  spiritual  and  ceremonial 
elements  in  their  respective  places.  Christian  history 
certainly  justifies  them  in  their  view.  Forms  and  cere- 
monies are  like  ladders.  On  them  we  may  climb  up  or 
down.  If  we  keep  them  in  their  places  as  symbols,  the 
soul  feeds  on  the  truth  symbolized.  If  we  convert  them 
into  sacraments,  the  soul  misses  the  central  vitality 
itself,  spiritual  communion  with  God.  An  outward  re- 
ligious ceremony  derives  its  chief  significance  from  the 
context  in  which  it  is  placed,  from  the  general  system 
of  which  it  forms  a  part.  If  a  ceremony  is  set  in  the 
context  of  a  spiritual  system  of  truths,  it  may  become 
an  indispensable  element  for  the  furtherance  of  those 
truths.  If  it  is  set  in  the  context  of  a  sacramental  sys- 
tem, it  may  and  does  become  a  means  for  obscuring 
the  truth  and  enslaving  the  soul.  It  is  this  perception 
of  the  value  of  ceremonies  as  symbols  and  of  their 
perils  as  sacraments  which  animates  Baptists  in  their 
strenuous  advocacy  of  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  the 
ordinances  of  Christianity.  The  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism has  been  one  of  the  greatest  evils  which  has  arisen 
in  the  history  of  Christianity  in  the  Baptist  view.  It  is 
not  forgotten  that  in  the  United  States  there  has  been 


3  Introduction. 

some  modification  in  the  estimate  of  the  ordinance  as 
practiced  by  some  of  the  pedobaptist  denominations. 
But  in  principle  infant  baptism  remains  where  it  has 
been  from  the  beginning,  an  excrescence  and  ahen  ele- 
ment in  the  body  of  general  Protestant  doctrine.  For- 
tunately, these  great  denominations  often  possess  other 
elements  which  are  spiritual  and  inconsistent  with  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism.  This  makes  it  seem  to  a 
Baptist  incredible  that  infant  baptism  should  be  retained 
by  them  as  in  any  sense  an  element  of  New  Testament 
Christianity. 

In  the  light  of  the  preceding  statements  it  will  not 
be  difficult  for  a  fair-minded  pedobaptist  to  understand 
the  motive  of  a  Baptist  in  maintaining  believers'  and 
opposing  infant  baptism.  It  is  not  as  the  champion  of 
a  form  or  ceremony  merely,  it  is  not  as  a  formalist  at 
all,  that  he  pleads.  It  is  rather  as  the  advocate  of 
an  intensely  and  radically  spiritual  Christianity,  which 
seeks  to  reproduce  that  of  the  New  Testament. 

Professor  McGlothlin  has  traced  the  development  of 
infant  baptism  throughout  Christian  history  with  great 
clearness  in  the  pages  of  this  volume.  Perhaps  no 
better  argument  can  be  offered  against  the  practice  than 
that  afforded  by  the  facts  of  its  origin,  and  the  motives 
which  led  to  its  perpetuation.  Certainly  no  pen  can 
adequately  describe  the  evils  to  which  it  has  given  rise 
in  those  countries  where  the  logic  of  infant  baptism  has 
had  an  opportunity  to  work  itself  out  fully  in  church 
life.  The  fundamental  explanation  is  to  be  found  at 
every  stage  in  the  history.  Infant  baptism  shifts  the 
center  of  gravity  of  Christianity  so  completely  that  a 
thorough  transformation  of  church  life  follows.  The 
direct  gives  place  to  an  indirect  relation  of  the  soul  to 
God;  personal  faith  gives  place  to  proxy  profession; 
the  vital  inward  change  or  new  birth  gives  place  to  a 
fictitious  sacramental  salvation ;  a  regenerate  gives  place 
to  an  unregenerate  church  membership.  This  is  the 
logic  of  infant  baptism,  and  it  is  universal  experience 
as  well,  except  where  other  and  opposing  principles 
neutralize  the  tendency.  E.  Y.  Mullins. 


CHAPTER  I. 


INFANT-BAPTISM  IN  THE  WORLD. 


Infant-baptism  is  one  of  the  most  tenderly 
cherished  and  widely  practiced  of  all  ecclesiastical 
ceremonies.  Of  the  more  than  five  hundred  mil- 
lions of  nominal  Christian  population  of  the 
world  the  vast  majority  administer  this  rite,  while 
a  comparatively  small  minority  actually  oppose 
infant-baptism  and  insist  on  the  practice  of  faith- 
baptism  only.  The  two  great  Catholic  churches 
are  unanimious  in  its  support,  and  the  great  major- 
ity of  Protestant  churches  officially  favor  it, 
though  some  of  them  insist  on  its  practice  less 
strenuously  than  the  Catholics.  Millions  rely 
upon  it  for  regeneration  and  life  eternal.  Some 
parents  look  upon  the  death  of  an  unbaptized 
child  with  terror,  feeling  certain  that  the  little 
one  will  be  banished  from  the  face  of  God  for- 
ever. The  baptism  of  royal  infants  is  a  court 
function  of  the  highest  importance,  while  in  the 
home  of  the  peasant  it  is  an  event  of  the  greatest 
moment.  Ecclesiastics  and  parents  alike  unite  in 
demanding  the  baptism  of  the  infant,  to  assure 
the  little  one's  eternal  welfare  and  gain  ecclesias- 
tical control  over  the  life  at  its  beginning. 

Often  the  State  has  demanded  the  administra- 
tion of  infant-baptism  as  sternly  as  the  Church, 

(9) 


10  Infant-Baptism, 

and  in  some  lands  the  want  of  baptism  is  still 
a  serious  disability  in  the  civil  life  of  the  citizen. 
During  the  later  Middle  Ages  infant-baptism  was 
almost  triumphant,  and  its  advocates  were  en- 
gaged in  a  bloody  effort  to  suppress  by  force 
all  who  opposed.  It  was  not  effectively  chal- 
lenged till  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  and 
the  marked  growth  of  faith-baptism  did  not  be- 
gin till  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries. 
Even  now  great  numbers  of  pedobaptists  regard 
anti-pedobaptists  as  a  body  of  ignorant,  narrow, 
perverted  and  troublesome  fanatics  who  do  not 
care  for  the  religious  welfare  of  their  children 
and  who  are  in  fact  semi-heathen ;  others  feel  that 
anti-pedobaptists  make  overmuch  trouble  about  a 
ceremony  that  is  at  least  harmless  and  beautiful ; 
still  others  feel  that  anti-pedobaptists  deny  to 
their  children  a  right  which  was  granted  to  them 
by  the  Saviour  himself  and  which  has  been  prac- 
ticed ever  since. 

And  yet  pedobaptist  and  anti-pedobaptist  schol- 
ars are  agreed  almost  absolutely  as  to  the  ascer- 
tainable facts  connected  with  the  history  of  infant- 
baptism.  Briefly  stated,  these  facts  are  as  fol- 
lows:  The  Scriptures  are  silent  concerning  in- 
fant-baptism ;  Jesus  did  not  baptize  any  one  (John 
4:2),  and  all  the  recorded  cases  of  baptism  are 
baptisms  of  believers;  there  is  no  express  com- 
mand to  baptize  any  but  believers ;  if  infant-bap- 
tism is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  it  is  wholly 
by  inference ;  there  is  no  conclusive  proof  of  the 
existence  of  the  practice  of  infant-baptism   for 


Infant-Baptism  in  the  World.  H 

more  than  a  century  and  a  half  after  the  death  of 
Jesus.  The  earliest  clear  evidence  of  the  practice 
is  found  in  Tertullian,  who  lived  at  Carthage  in 
North  Africa,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century; 
he  opposed  the  practice;  the  next  evidence  is 
found  in  Cyprian,  the  bishop  of  this  same  city  of 
Carthage,  about  250.  Origen,  a  great  scholar  of 
Egypt,  also  in  North  Africa,  probably  shows 
acquaintance  with  and  approval  of  it  about  the 
same  time ;  it  next  appears  at  Constantinople  in 
the  following  century,  but  is  opposed  by  the  great 
preacher  and  bishop  of  that  city,  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen ;  from  this  time  on  it  gradually  spreads  over 
the  Christian  world.  Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo, 
in  North  Africa,  in  the  fifth  century,  developed 
the  theological  argument  for  the  practice,  basing 
it  in  the  regenerating  power  of  baptism  operating 
on  the  depraved  nature  of  the  infant  child:  on 
this  basis  it  rapidly  spread  throughout  the  world ; 
civil  governments  began  in  the  early  Middle 
Ages  to  support  the  Church  with  force  in 
the  demand  that  all  children  should  be  bap- 
tized ;  some  of  the  sects  of  the  later  Middle  Ages 
opposed  infant-baptismi  but  were  hunted  to  death 
as  heretics;  most  of  the  Reformers  preserved  in- 
fant-baptism, but  a  strong  contingency,  known 
as  Anabaptists,  began  a  powerful  agitation  for  its 
abolition.  Since  that  time  infant-baptism  has 
relatively  declined,  while  faith-baptism  has  had  a 
great  revival.  These  tendencies  were  greatly 
accelerated  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  now 
show  no  symptoms  of  abatement. 


12  Infant-Baptism. 

These  are  the  ascertainable  facts  concerning 
which  there  is  little  difference  of  opinion  among 
scholars  of  all  communions.  The  differences  lie 
beyond  the  ascertainable  facts  in  the  realm  of  in- 
ference. Anti-pedobaptists  maintain  that  these 
facts  are  full  and  final,  that  they  constitute  an 
overwhelming  argument  against  infant-baptism 
and  in  favor  of  faith-baptism.  Pedobaptists  claim 
that  infant-baptism  can  be  legitimately  inferred 
and  satisfactorily  supported  by  these  facts.  The 
two  great  parties  separate  in  the  realm  of  infer- 
ence, not  of  fact. 

In  the  view  of  anti-pedobaptists,  infant-bap- 
tism is  not  only  without  scriptural  warrant,  but 
is  also  positively  and  seriously  injurious  when 
viewed  in  the  whole  range  of  its  work.  Pedobap- 
tists while  differing  widely,  even  fundamentally, 
among  themselves  as  to  what  baptism  actually 
accomplishes  in  or  for  the  infant,  are  agreed  that 
it  brings  some  blessing.  And  yet  they  would 
scarcely  claim  that  their  children  show  by  the 
pragmatic  test  of  actual  later  life  any  higher  moral 
standards,  and  purer  faith,  clearer  hope,  greater 
zeal  or  more  earnest  piety  than  the  children  of 
pious  and  cultured  anti-pedobaptists.  The  sup- 
posedly beneficial  effects  of  baptism,  when  tested 
by  actual  experience,  are  seen  to  be  wholly  in  the 
realm  of  conjecture.  They  cannot  be  set  down 
as  facts.     The  known  facts  are  as  stated  above. 

Anti-pedobaptists  believe  that  infant-baptism  is 
not  only  totally  devoid  of  warrant  in  Scripture 
in  the  way  of  either  precept  or  example,  but  that 


Infant-Baptism  in  the  World.  I3 

it  also  violates  the  fundamental  conception  of  re- 
ligion set  forth  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  intro- 
duces a  second  baptism,  which  works  to  abolish 
faith-baptism  which  is  commanded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. In  its  essential  nature,  it  nullifies  the  fun- 
damental Christian  principles  of  personal  choice 
and  conscious  religious  experience;  it  violates  in 
the  cradle  of  helpless  infancy  the  sacred  doctrine 
of  religious  freedom ;  historically  and  in  practice 
it  has  obscured  the  great  fact  of  spiritual  regener- 
ation through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  it  has  intro- 
duced the  unregenerate  world  into  the  Church, 
has  blurred  and  confused  the  distinction  between 
Christian  and  non-Christian;  has  led  millions  to 
depend  on  its  magical  effects  for  a  salvation  that 
is  promised  to  vital  faith  in  Christ  only;  has 
served  as  the  basis  for  the  union  of  Church  and 
State,  and  has  been  the  indispensable  condition 
of  religious  coercion  and  persecution  through  the 
centuries.  Without  the  forcible  administration  of 
baptism  on  unconscious  or  unwilling  individuals 
persecution  is  logically  impossible,  since  the  very 
essence  of  faith-baptism  is  the  personal  and  free 
choice  of  each  individual  on  all  religious  matters. 
Upon  infant-baptism,  therefore,  lies  first  respon- 
sibility for  all  the  blood  that  has  been  poured  out 
by  the  Church  in  the  effort  to  enforce  ecclesias- 
tical uniformity.  No  body  of  Christian  people 
who  have  consistently  practiced  faith-baptism 
have  been  guilty  of  persecution.  Further  than 
this,  a  moment's  consideration  will  make  it  per- 
fectly clear  to  any  thoughtful  man  that  those  who 


14  Infant-Baptism. 

practice  faith-baptism  could  not  become  perse- 
cutors, for  the  simple  reason  that  they  have 
adopted  the  voluntary  principle  in  religion. 

No  indictment  of  equal  gravity  can  be  brought 
against  any  other  ceremony  practiced  by  any  con- 
siderable part  of  the  Christian  world  today.  Not 
only  the  two  great  Catholic  churches,  but  also 
every  other  pedobaptist  church,  with  one  or  two 
minor  exceptions,  carries  the  blood  of  martyrs 
on  its  skirts  as  a  result  of  the  effort  to  coerce  men 
into  uniformity  through  infant-baptism. 

In  view  of  these  undeniable  facts  it  seems  to 
anti-pedobaptists  passing  strange  that  the  evan- 
gelical Protestant  churches  who  now  abhor  per- 
secution, and  insist  on  religious  freedom  and  a 
personal  religious  experience  as  a  condition  of 
church  membership,  should  still  persist  in  a  prac- 
tice whose  history  is  so  dark  and  whose  effects 
even  now  are  so  dangerous,  a  practice  which  is 
confessedly  without  clear  Scripture  warrant, 
which  is  Jewish  and  pagan  in  its  original  and 
fundamental  conception,  which  has  been  con- 
demned by  its  practical  effects  in  Christian  his- 
tory, which  tends  inevitably  to  nullify  the  spir- 
itual nature  of  Christianity  itself,  and  is  today 
the  rock  upon  which  Catholicism,  both  Roman 
and  Greek,  stands. 

The  practice  persists  chiefly  because  of  the 
power  of  ecclesiastical  tradition.  It  arose  out 
of  belief  in  the  magical  effects  of  baptism,  and 
is  defended  by  arguments  that  differ  according 
to  the  fundamental  standpoints  of  the  churches 


Infant-Baptism  in  the  World.  15 

that  maintain  it.  These  arguments  of  the  vari- 
ous pedobaptist  churches  often  invalidate  and 
negative  each  'ether,  but  without  any  effect  on 
their  respective  proponents.  The  Calvinist  repu- 
diates the  grounds  on  v^hich  the  CathoHc  bap- 
tizes infants,  and  vice  versa.  The  effort  to  make 
^•'^a  vaHd  scriptural  argument  by  adducing  cases  of 
infant-baptism  or  discovering  something  that 
could  be  construed  into  a  command  to  baptize 
infants  is  an  afterthought.  No  such  efforts  were 
made  in  the  early  history  of  the  practice.  It  was 
not  till  Protestants  arose  and  adopted  the  theory 
of  the  supreme  authority  of  Scripture  that  such 
arguments  were  attempted.  In  modern  times 
infant-baptism,  whatever  arguments  are  advanced 
in  its  support  in  controversy  with  the  advocates 
of  faith-baptism,  really  rests  on  one  of  the  three 
following  basal  principles:  The  Catholics  (Ro- 
man and  Greek)  and  many  Lutherans  and  Epis- 
copalians base  it  on  the  magical  regenerating 
power  of  the  ceremony;  Presbyterians,  Congre- 
gationalists  and  some  others  on  the  relation  of 
the  child  to  believing  parents;  Methodists  and 
some  others  make  it  a  simple  ceremony  of  dedica- 
tion by  which  the  child  is  publicly  and  solemnly 
given  to  God.  In  the  first  instance  the  child  is 
held  to  be  lost  without  baptism  and  is  believed 
to  be  saved  in  it  and  by  it ;  in  the  second  instance 
the  child  is  not  supposed  to  be  saved  by  it,  but 
since  it  is  born  of  believing  parents  (only  the 
children  of  believing  parents  are  baptized),  it  has 
a  right  to  baptism  as  the  ceremony  which  intro- 


16  Infant-Baptism. 

duces  it  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  circum- 
cision did  in  the  Jewish  economy.  Without  this 
infant-baptism  they  believe  the  child  would  some- 
how be  at  a  serious  disadvantage.  In  the  third 
case  baptism  is  not  for  the  direct  benefit  of  the 
child  at  all,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  parents,  who 
are  thus  reminded  of  their  solemn  duty  to  bring 
up  the  child  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord.  Doubtless  most  parents,  except  in  the 
Catholic  churches,  are  moved  by  parental  senti- 
ment without  any  clear  thought  as  to  the  purpose 
or  significance  of  baptism.  They  accept  it  as  an 
ancient  and  pretty  social  and  religious  custom 
whose  omission  would  be  nothing  short  of  a  social 
disgrace. 

All  the  pedobaptist  churches  baptize  adults  also, 
but  on  totally  different  grounds.  They  are  agreed 
that  an  adult  must  repent  and  believe,  else  baptism 
is  an  idle  and  useless  ceremony.  They  thus  have 
two  baptisms;  one  is  for  infants;  it  is  without 
faith  and  is  dependent  for  its  efficacy  and  signifi- 
cance either  on  the  magical  working  of  baptism 
or  on  the  natural  family  relation  of  the  infant  to 
believing  parents,  or  on  the  subsequent  religious 
instruction  given  by  parents.  The  other  is  for 
adults,  and  is  based  upon  preceding  faith. 

The  justification  of  infant-baptism  is  extremely 
difficult  and  embarrassing  to  all  except  those  who 
believe  in  its  regenerating  power.  It  grew  up 
in  the  Catholic  system  and  has  always  been  very 
embarrassing  to  evangelical  pedobaptists.  Clear 
thinkers,  like  Zwingli  and  Calvin,  are  utterly  con- 


Infant-Baptism  in  the  World.  I7 

fused  when  they  try  to  find  a  place  for  it  in  their 
systems.  Nothing  but  the  power  of  ecclesiastical 
tradition  could  keep  evangelical  pedobaptists 
practicing  a  custom  which  is  the  contradiction  of 
their  evangelical  principles.  In  view  of  these 
facts  it  is  not  strange  that  the  practice  is  on  the 
decline  among  evangelical  Christians. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  BAPTIST  VIEW  OF  BAPTISM. 


Baptists  hold  a  perfectly  simple  and  consistent 
view  of  baptism.  They  have  but  one  baptism  for 
all,  based  upon  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  re- 
cipient. They  do  not  baptize  one  class  for  one 
reason  and  another  for  another.  They  have  **one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  What  they  insist 
on  with  unwavering  fidelity  is  that  repentance 
toward  God  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
must  precede  baptism  in  every  instance.  It  is  not 
a  question  of  infants  or  adults,  not  a  question  of 
age  in  any  sense,  but  of  faith.  If  infants  could 
exercise  faith  Baptists  would  baptize  every  one 
that  gave  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  possession 
of  that  faith  and  expressed  a  desire  for  baptism. 
When  there  is  a  request  for  baptism  and  satis- 
factory evidence  of  the  existence  of  faith  is  found, 
Baptists  baptize,  whether  the  candidate  is  eight, 
or  twelve,  or  twenty,  or  seventy.  Age,  it  is  re- 
peated, has  no  place  in  the  discussion.  Ours  is 
not  an  adult-  as  contrasted  with  a  child-baptism, 
but  a  faith-baptism  as  contrasted  with  a  non-faith- 
baptism.  Baptists  believe  that  all  persons  who 
die  without  attaining  moral  responsibility,  what- 
ever be  the  cause,  are  saved  by  the  mercy  and 
grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.    But  this  salvation 

(18) 


The  Baptist  View  of  Baptism.  19 

is  without  the  exercise  of  faith  and  so  without  the 
duty  of  baptism.  Baptists  would  no  more  baptize 
an  idiot  than  an  infant,  because  neither  is  cap- 
able of  exercising  faith.  They  beHeve  baptism 
to  be  absolutely  inseparable  from  the  exercise  of 
personal  saving  faith. 

The  reasons  which  actuate  the  Baptists  in  these 
views  and  practices  are  many  and  various.  The 
scriptural  argument  will  be  reviewed  at  some 
length  in  the  next  two  chapters.  In  this  the  more 
general  phases  of  the  argument  will  be  stated. 

I.  Baptists  believe  that  the  essential  nature 
of  the  Christian  religion  makes  any  other  than 
the  view  set  forth  above  untenable  and  any  other 
practice  than  theirs  ultimately  if  not  immediately 
hurtful.  Salvation  is,  as  they  believe,  personal. 
There  are  no  proxies,  one  cannot  stand  for  an- 
other in  spiritual  things.  Every  soul  must  for 
itself  enter  into  right  relations  with  God  through 
Jesus  Christ.  The  soul  must  be  free,  in  full  pos- 
session of  its  faculties,  its  actions  voluntary.  In- 
fant-baptism is  a  process  of  spiritual  kidnaping.  It 
not  only  has  no  blessings  for  the  child,  but  vio- 
lates the  fundamental  religious  rights  of  the  in- 
dividual, deciding  for  him  when  he  is  helpless 
what  he  has  a  God-given  right  and  duty  to  decide 
for  himself.  It  is  not  only  futile,  but  denies  to 
its  victim  the  highest  functions  of  a  spiritual  be- 
ing, the  right  of  self-direction  in  the  supreme  con- 
cerns of  the  soul.  As  well  baptize  an  adult  in 
the  unconsciousness  of  sleep  or  anesthesia  or  de- 
lirium as  an  infant  in  its  moral  and  religious  un- 


20  Infant-Baptism. 

consciousness.  Infant-baptism  is  the  first  and 
fundamental  violation  of  religious  freedom  and 
draws  all  other  violations  in  its  train. 

Baptists  do  not  believe  that  religion  in  its  es- 
sence is  an  affair  of  the  family  or  the  nation  or 
of  racial  descent.  They  recognize  that  the  pagan 
religions  were  and  are  tribal,  national,  or  racial. 
A  pagan  is  born  into  a  religion  as  he  is  born  into 
citizenship  in  a  given  state.  In  some  measure 
the  Jewish  religion  stood  on  the  same  basis.  The 
Jewish  child  was  born  into  the  Jewish  religion, 
and  he  was  circumcised  in  acknowledgment  and 
confirmation  of  that  fact.  His  was  a  national  re- 
ligion. His  circumcision  and  religious  duties 
were  based  on  his  birth,  his  racial  and  physical 
origin.  It  neither  marked  nor  wrought  any 
change  in  his  spiritual  condition;  in  fact,  it  had 
no  relation  to  his  personal  character  or  spiritual 
condition  as  an  individual.  To  omit  it  was  to 
renounce  loyalty  to  Israel;  it  involved  expulsion 
from  the  nation  and  so  from  its  spiritual  as  well 
as  its  other  advantages. 

But  in  the  fullness  of  the  times  this  ideal  had 
served  its  purposes  in  the  progress  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  the  day  arrived  for  the  bless- 
ings of  grace  to  be  sent  broadcast  throughout  the 
earth.  In  order  to  accomplish  this  high  purpose 
change  was  necessary.  John  the  Baptist  was 
raised  up  as  a  "teacher  sent  from  God"  to  insti- 
tute this  change.  He  broke  away  from  the  racial 
conception  of  religion  altogether,  and  made  the 
personal  experience  of  repentance  and  faith  in 


The  Baptist  View  of  Baptism,  21 

every  individual  of  whatever  race  or  family  the 
basis  of  religion.  The  ax  was  laid  at  the  root 
of  every  tree  (Jewish  as  well  as  Gentile),  and 
every  tree  (Jewish  as  well  as  Gentile)  that  brings 
not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into 
the  fire.  The  basis  of  religion  in  the  mouth  of 
John  is  personal.  In  order  to  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God  the  Jew  as  well  as  the  Gentile  must  re- 
pent and  believe  and  so  the  Jew  as  well  as  the 
Gentile  must  be  baptized.  Circumcision  was  for 
the  Jewish  male  child,  baptism  was  for  the  re- 
pentant and  believing  human  being  (Jew  and 
Gentile  alike).  The  two  ceremonies  stood  on 
totally  different  bases,  meant  totally  different 
things,  and  so  had  no  relation  of  kinship  to  each 
other.  Jews  who  had  been  circumcised  in  infancy 
were  baptized  notwithstanding  their  circumcision. 
Circumcision  rested  upon  the  rights  and  duties 
of  Jewish  citizenship,  a  racial  basis,  and  so  was 
to  be  administered  to  every  male  Jewish  child; 
baptism  rests  upon  a  personal,  spiritual  basis  (re- 
pentance and  faith)  and  so  is  to  be  administered 
to  every  individual  (male  or  female)  who  pos- 
sesses the  necessary  spiritual  qualifications,  ir- 
respective of  sex,  race,  or  family.  Circumcision 
by  its  nature  and  purpose  was  limited  to  Jewish 
male  children,  baptism  is  limited  by  its  nature  to 
believers.  Genuine  baptism  before  faith  is  as 
impossible  as  circumcision  before  birth. 

Baptists  do  not  fail  to  value  Christian  parent- 
age or  emphasize  parental  obligation  to  bring  up 
children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 


22  Infant-Baptism. 

Lord.  But  they  cannot  believe  that  the  child  in- 
herits the  Christianity  of  its  parents  or  loses  any 
spiritual  blessings  by  the  omission  of  a  ceremony 
that  is  supposed  to  have  taken  the  place  of  the 
old  Jewish  circumcision.  To  Baptists  the  Chris- 
tian religion  is  by  its  very  nature  personal  and 
spiritual.  In  their  opinion  there  can  be  no  reli- 
gion by  proxy  or  family  or  ceremony.  A  child 
can  no  more  inherit  its  parents'  faith  than  their 
view  of  the  solar  system.  Salvation  lies  in  the 
realm  of  personal  experience  where  there  are  no 
proxies  before  birth  or  after  birth,  and  as  every 
individual  must  consciously  believe  for  himself 
so  he  must  consciously  choose  baptism  for  him- 
self. 

2.  Baptists  reject  infant-baptism  because  they 
believe  our  religion  is  spiritual.  The  high  and 
holy  transactions  between  the  soul  and  God  take 
place  in  the  clear  light  of  consciousness.  They 
do  not  believe  that  the  ceremony  of  baptism  can 
work  in  a  magical  way  to  produce  in  the  soul, 
while  it  is  morally  unconscious,  such  tremendous 
effects  as  regeneration  and  salvation.  To  Bap- 
tists the  practice  of  baptizing  babies  for  the  re- 
moval of  sin  of  which  they  are  not  conscious  is 
blasphemous  mockery,  working  immeasurable 
wrong  to  the  soul  by  lulling  it  into  a  false  and 
dangerous  security  when  it  comes  to  conscious 
responsibility.  The  view  that  baptism  regenerates 
is  pagan  in  its  origin  and  came  directly  from 
paganism  into  Christianity.  It  was,  except  among 
Pelagians,  the  only  view  of  infant-baptism  h^i 


The  Baptist  View  of  Baptism.  23 

by  anybody  down  to  the  Reformation,  and  is  still 
the  view  and  teaching  of  the  vast  majority  of 
those  who  practice  it.  It  is,  in  the  judgment  of 
Baptists,  the  deadliest  heresy  that  ever  crept  out 
of  the  pagan  religions  of  the  Roman  empire  into 
the  faith  of  the  Christian  Church.  If  evangelical 
Protestants  sometimes  wonder  at  the  tenacity  of 
the  Baptists  in  their  opposition  to  infant-baptism 
they  can  easily  find  the  explanation  in  the  history 
and  present  practice  of  the  ceremony.  It  is  a  con- 
stant cause  of  wonder  to  Baptists  that  evangel- 
ical Protestants  so  tenaciously  perpetuate  a  prac- 
tice for  which  they  can  find  no  certain  Scripture 
warrant,  a  practice  which  is  the  very  cornerstone 
of  the  Catholic  churches,  which  is  relied  on  by 
hundreds  of  millions  of  souls  in  our  day  for  a 
salvation  which  no  evangelical  Christian  believes 
it  can  give  them  and  which  had  such  a  sinister 
and  bloody  history  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Bap- 
tists cannot  look  upon  this  practice  without  a 
shudder.  They  believe  our  religion  is  spiritual 
and  therefore  they  reject  infant-baptism,  which 
they  believe  has  been  the  chief  hindrance  to  evan- 
gelical Christianity  in  its  whole  history.  It  is  in 
the  interest  of  spiritual  freedom  and  reality  that 
they  protest.  It  is  not  from  love  of  controversy 
or  isolation,  but  from  a  profound  conviction  that 
the  most  precious  treasures  are  at  stake. 

3.  Baptists  do  not  believe  that  baptism,  which 
has  a  distinct  and  important  place  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  should  be  emptied  of  its  real  meaning  by 
reducing  it  to  a  ceremony  of  infant  dedication. 


24  Infant-Baptism. 

They  believe  that  all  parents  should  in  their  hearts 
dedicate  their  children  to  God  and  do  their  ut- 
most to  rear  them  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord.  Nor 
do  they  have  any  objection  to  a  public  dedica- 
tion to  God,  if  parents  so  desire.  What  they  ob- 
ject to  is  the  prostitution  of  baptism  to  this  use. 
Baptism  was  instituted  as  a  ceremony  of  self- 
dedication  to  Jesus  Christ  and  a  public,  dramatic 
proclamation  of  personal  repentance  and  faith 
in  him.  It  is  needed  for  this  purpose  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Christian  life,  and  it  is  a  serious 
perversion  of  the  ordinance  and  a  serious  loss  to 
the  Christian  life  to  use  it  for  the  public  dedica- 
tion of  infants,  thereby  preventing  its  use  for  the 
purpose  for  which  the  Founder  instituted  it. 
Pedobaptists  have  no  ceremony  of  self-dedication 
at  the  beginning  of  the  real  Christian  life — a  great 
loss. 

4.  Baptists  reject  infant-baptism  because  they 
believe  it  to  be  entirely  without  warrant  in  Scrip- 
ture. Confessedly  there  is  no  explicit  command 
to  baptize  infants  or  any  others  than  believers. 
Nor  is  there  any  example  of  infant-baptism.  It 
is  not  specifically  forbidden  in  Scripture,  it  is  true, 
but  Baptists  believe  it  to  be  excluded  by  the  terms 
of  the  Great  Commission  under  which  Christian 
work  is  done.  They  believe  it  is  not  forbidden 
because  the  practice  had  not  arisen,  and  did  not, 
therefore,  come  into  the  purview  of  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  first  century.  Complete  silence  con- 
cerning a  custom  which  differs  so  radically  from 
faith-baptism,  which  was  commanded,  is  a  power- 


The  Baptist  View  of  Baptism.  25 

ful  presupposition  against  the  existence  of  the 
practice.  To  argue  that  a  practice  is  permitted 
and  approved  when  it  is  not  forbidden  would 
open  the  door  to  all  the  other  Catholic  innova- 
tions of  the  centuries,  such  as  the  mass,  venera- 
tion of  saints,  relics  and  images,  transubstantia- 
tion  and  the  rest,  none  of  which  are  forbidden  in 
Scripture.  This  argument  proves  too  much,  and 
therefore  proves  nothing.  The  fact  that  a  prac- 
tice is  not  forbidden  in  Scripture  is  not  a  proof 
that  it  is  approved. 

5.  In  the  next  place.  Baptists  reject  infant- 
baptism  because  they  can  trace  its  rise  in  Chris- 
tian history  subsequent  to  the  Apostolic  Age. 
They  know  that  it  comes  out  of  the  years  when 
the  fundamentals  of  Christianity  were  being  ob- 
scured and  obliterated  by  the  absorption  into  the 
Church  of  pre-Christian  Jewish  and  pagan  ideas 
and  practices.  First  came  baptismal  remission 
and  regeneration,  the  saving  significance  of  the 
ordinance,  and  out  of  this  corruption  naturally 
arose  the  practice  of  baptizing  the  sick  and  the 
dying,  who  were  believed  to  be  lost  if  they  died 
unbaptized.  Very  naturally  the  supposed  benefits 
of  baptism  were  extended  to  sick  infants  and  then 
gradually  to  all  infants. 

It  originated  in  those  years  in  which  the  old 
paganism  and  Christianity  were  being  amalga- 
mated into  what  is  called  the  Catholic  church, 
and  the  history  of  the  period  does  not  recommend 
the  practice.  It  rose  in  the  making  of  the  Cath- 
olic system  and  it  fits  there  perfectly;  but  it  is 


26  Infant-Baptism. 

an  anomaly  in  any  evangelical  system  built  on 
justification  by  faith.  It  is  a  grief  to  Baptists 
that  their  Protestant  brethren  have  retained  this 
unevangelical  Catholic  practice  which  is  so  utterly 
alien  to  their  own  faith,  which  drives  them  to 
such  strange  expedients  in  its  defense,  which  con- 
stantly jeopardizes  their  own  evangelical  position 
and  which  has  drawn  in  its  train  through  the 
centuries  such  a  mass  of  evils. 

6.  Baptists  reject  infant-baptism  because  of  its 
baleful  effects  in  Christian  history.  Hardly  any 
other  departure  from  Scripture  teaching  has  been 
so  prolific  of  evil.  It  was  the  open  door  through 
which  the  unregenerate  world  flooded  into  the 
Church  and  finally  overwhelmed  it.  The  whole 
of  society  poured  into  the  Church  through  this 
door,  all  distinction  between  the  Church  and 
the  world  disappeared,  the  ideal  of  a  pure  church 
vanished,  church  discipline  ceased ;  henceforth  the 
world  and  the  Church  were  identical.  Without 
infant-baptism  there  never  would  have  been  a 
Catholic  church  and  the  whole  history  of  the 
Christian  world  would  have  been  different.  Bap- 
tists believe  that  these  indisputable  historical  ef- 
fects constitute  a  sound  reason  for  rejecting  the 
practice. 

7.  Finally,  Baptists  claim  that  the  very  ritual 
of  baptism  used  by  many  of  the  pedobaptist 
churches  themselves  proves  that  faith  was  re- 
quired in  the  earliest  times.  The  oldest  of  these 
rituals  are  very  ancient  and  they  presuppose  faith. 
The  priest  is  still  required  to  ask  the  child  if  it 


The  Baptist  View  of  Baptism.  2fl 

repents,  believes,  renounces  the  world,  etc.  The 
sponsors  answer  for  the  child,  in  the  name  of  the 
child.  It  is  all  absurd,  ridiculous,  dishonest.  It 
proves  absolutely  that  the  early  churches  required 
faith. 

Coupled  with  this  was  the  institution  of  the 
catechumenate  in  which  candidates  were  carefully 
trained  before  they  received  baptism.  This  was 
not  applied  to  heathen  and  their  children  only, 
but  also  to  the  children  of  Christian  parents. 

All  these  considerations  lead  Baptists  not  only 
to  regard  infant-baptism  as  without  warrant,  but 
also  to  feel  that  it  is  positively  wrong.  It  is  with 
profound  regret  that  they  see  their  evangelical 
pedobaptist  brethren  perpetuating  a  practice 
which  they  inherited  from  Catholicism,  which  has 
been  so  hurtful  in  the  past  and  which  is  so  dan- 
gerous to  spiritual,  evangelical  Christianity  for 
the  future. 


CHAPTER  III. 


INFANT-BAPTISM  AND  THE  SCRIP- 
TURES. 


Baptism  is  a  Christian  ordinance.  It  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  first  appears 
in  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist.  It  is  intro- 
duced without  any  explanation  of  its  origin  or 
significance.  John  mentions  the  fact  that  he  was 
sent  to  baptize  by  God  the  Father  himself  (John 
I  •  33)  31)-  His  was  a  "baptism  of  repentance," 
that  is,  it  was  based  upon  repentance  which  it 
presupposed  (Mark  1:4;  Luke  3:3;  Acts  13: 
24).  This  fact  excludes  a  non-faith  infant-bap- 
tism in  his  practice,  and  so  far  as  known  no  one 
claims  that  John  baptized  infants.  He  preached 
powerfully  and  pungently  and  baptized  those  who 
repented. 

Jesus  began  his  public  ministry  by  asking  bap- 
tism at  the  hands  of  John,  thus  aligning  himself 
with  John's  movement.  When  John  hesitated 
and  demurred,  he  insisted,  declaring  that  "thus 
it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness"  (Matt. 
3 :  15).  After  his  baptism  and  temptation  he  also 
began  preaching  and  gathering  disciples  around 
himself.  His  message  at  the  beginning  was  iden- 
tical with  that  of  John;  he,  too,  proclaimed  the 
demand,  "Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 

(28) 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  29 

is  at  hand."  Jesus,  through  his  baptism,  as  well 
as  through  his  early  messages  and  first  followers, 
allied  himself  directly  with  John  and  his  move- 
ment. His  work  was  a  continuation  of  that  of 
John,  his  earliest  disciples  had  been  disciples  of 
John  (John  i:  35fif;  3:  26).  They  continued 
to  baptize  after  they  transferred  their  allegiance 
to  Jesus,  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  change 
of  the  subject  of  baptism  from  a  penitent  believer 
to  an  unconscious  infant  either  then  or  later  (John 
3:  22f). 

Nothing  more  is  said  in  the  gospel  narrative 
about  baptisms  by  Jesus  or  his  disciples  after  the 
early  weeks  of  his  ministry.  Because  of  this  silence 
in  the  record  some  commentators  have  thought 
that  he  suspended  baptisms  altogether  after  a 
while  to  give  himself  wholly  to  the  spiritual  work 
of  the  kingdom.  This  does  not  seem  probable, 
however,  since  he  later  commends  the  baptism  of 
John  (Matt.  21 :  25;  Mark  11 :  30;  Luke  20:  4; 
7 :  28f ),  and  uses  the  figure  of  baptism  in  the  de- 
scription of  his  approaching  sufferings  (Matt.  20: 
22f ;  Mark  10:  38f).  He  would  hardly  have  done 
this  unless  the  practice  of  baptism  had  been  con- 
tinued throughout  his  ministry  so  as  to  be  famil- 
iar to  his  hearers.  The  probability  is  that  there 
were  very  few  conversions  after  the  period  of 
hostility  began,  and  so  naturally  few  baptisms. 
There  is,  however,  it  must  be  admitted,  no  com- 
mand to  baptize  until  after  his  resurrection,  nor 
any  example  of  his  baptizing,  except  at  the  be- 
ginning of  his  ministry. 


30  Infant-Baptism. 

Did  he  baptize  little  children  in  the  middle  of 
that  ministry  ?  It  is  not  probable  that  he  did.  He 
loved  little  children,  used  them  in  illustrating  pro- 
found and  important  truths  (Mark  9:  36f ;  Luke 
9:  47;  Matt  18:  2,  4f;  Mark  10:  15;  Luke  18: 
17;  7:  32)  ;  he  insisted  on  their  having  free  ac- 
cess to  him  and  his  teaching,  declaring  that  the 
kingdom  with  all  its  riches  belonged  to  them  as 
well  as  to  others  (Matt.  19:  14;  Mark  10:  14)  ; 
he  took  them  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them.  But 
did  he  baptize  them?  "Jesus  himself  baptized 
not"  (John  4:2).  If  these  children  were  bap- 
tized it  must  have  been  done  by  his  disciples. 
But  they  sought  to  hinder  them  from  coming  to 
him  and  the  spirit  which  they  manifested  is  not 
such  as  to  lead  us  to  believe  that  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  baptize  children  or  expected  him  to  do 
so  on  this  occasion.  If  they  had  been  instructed 
by  Jesus  to  baptize  children  it  is  inconceivable 
that  they  would  have  behaved  so  roughly  as  to 
call  forth  a  sharp  rebuke  from  the  Master.  If 
Jesus  himself  baptized  them  he  changed  his  earlier 
custom  of  baptizing  only  through  his  disciples, 
and  changed  also  from  the  earlier  practice  of  both 
John  and  himself,  for  both  had  required  repent- 
ance as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism.  If  such  radical 
changes  had  been  made  at  this  time  it  seems  cer- 
tain that  something  would  have  been  said  in  the 
narrative  to  indicate  that  fact,  whereas  there  is 
absolute  silence  concerning  baptism  in  connection 
with  the  blessing  of  the  little  children  who  were 
brought  to  him.    For  these  reasons  Baptists  main- 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  31 

tain  that  Jesus  not  only  baptized  no  infants  him- 
self, but  that  none  were  baptized  during  his  life- 
time. 

The  Great  Commission  (Matt.  28:  i6flf),  given 
after  his  death  and  resurrection  as  his  final  in- 
structions and  his  program  for  his  disciples  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  work  of  the  kingdom,  not 
only  does  not  command  the  administration  of 
baptism  to  infants  but  by  its  terms  clearly  ex- 
cludes the  practice.  "Go  .  .  .  make  disciples 
baptizing  them  .  .  .  teaching 
them."  It  is  a  missionary  program.  A  con- 
scious world  is  to  be  brought  into  the  position 
of  discipleship  to  Jesus  Christ  and  then  baptized 
and  taught  all  the  fullness  of  the  gospel.  It  has 
no  application  to  infants.  In  the  view  of  Christ 
the  whole  world  is  and  will  remain  a  mission  field. 
He  has  no  program  but  a  mission  program. 
There  is  no  plan  of  work  except  that  of  making 
disciples  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  then 
baptizing  and  teaching  them.  If  the  whole  world 
were  converted  today  the  work  of  evangelizing 
would  need  to  be  taken  up  again  tomorrow.  In 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  it  is  a  continuous  task. 
The  fact  that  one's  parents  are  Christians  has  no 
bearing  on  one's  own  life  except  as  it  gives 
greater  opportunities  to  know  saving  truth.  The 
Commission  aflFords  no  warrant  for  the  baptism 
of  any  but  disciples. 

But  what  was  the  practice  of  the  apostles  ?  Did 
they  baptize  infants  or  give  instructions  to  begin 
that  practice?     So  far  as  known  no  respectable 


32  Infant-Baptism. 

pedobaptist  scholar  claims  that  there  are  any 
apostolic  instructions  on  the  subject  of  infant- 
baptism.  Nor  do  they  claim  that  there  are  any 
certain  cases  of  its  administration  in  apostolic 
history.  Here  as  earlier  in  the  gospel  narrative 
the  most  that  can  be  claimed  is  a  few  passages 
from  which  it  is  thought  that  infant-baptism  can 
be  legitimately  inferred.     Let  us  examine  these. 

There  are  certain  passages  which  refer  to  the 
baptism  of  "households"  and  it  is  claimed  that 
infant-baptism  can  be  legitimately  inferred  from 
these  incidents.  The  argument  is  about  as  fol- 
lows: Households  often  have  infants  in  them, 
therefore  there  were  infants  in  these  households ; 
these  households  were  baptized,  therefore  the  in- 
fants were  baptized ;  the  infants  were  baptized  in 
these  cases,  therefore  it  was  the  custom  of  the 
apostles  to  baptize  infants.  Such  is  the  argument. 
Its  weakness  as  an  argument  is  so  obvious  that 
its  logical  inconclusiveness  need  not  be  pointed 
out.  Let  us  rather  study  the  cases  under  consid- 
eration. They  are  five:  Cornelius  at  Csesarea, 
Lydia  and  the  jailer  at  Philippi,  Stephanas  and 
Crispus  at  Corinth.  The  first  case  occurred  in 
the  experience  of  Peter,  the  other  four  in  that 
of  Paul. 

The  case  of  the  Roman  centurion  Cornelius  is 
related  in  Acts  lo  and  ii.  Is  there  any  evidence 
here  that  Peter  has  broken  away  from  the  prac- 
tice of  his  Master  and  his  own  earlier  practice 
and  begun  the  baptizing  of  infants  ?  He  is  mak- 
ing one  great  innovation  in  that  he  is  preaching 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  33 

to  Gentiles  for  the  first  time;  is  he  making  an- 
other by  baptizing  infants?  The  supposition  is 
in  itself  improbable.  But  we  are  not  left  to  sur- 
mise in  this  case.  In  Acts  10:  2,  Cornelius  is 
said  to  have  been  "a  devout  man,  and  one  that 
feared  God  with  all  his  house;"  in  10:  44  it  is 
said  that  "the  Holy  Spirit  fell  on  all  them  that 
heard  the  word ;"  the  Jewish  Christians  present 
"were  amazed"  "because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also 
was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For 
they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues,  and  magnify 
God"  (10:  45f).  It  is  manifest  that  there  were 
no  infants  in  this  household.  They  were  all  de- 
vout before  the  visit  of  Peter ;  they  all  heard  the 
word;  the  Spirit  fell  on  all  of  them  and  they  all 
spake  with  tongues.  These  statements  could  not 
be  true  of  infants. 

So  far,  then,  as  the  evidence  reveals  his  prac- 
tice, Peter  continued  baptizing  believers  and  be- 
lievers only,  as  his  Master  had  done.  But  what 
of  Paul?  He  never  knew  Jesus  personally.  Did 
he  depart  from  the  practice  and  the  command  of 
Jesus  his  Lord  as  he  carried  the  gospel  "far 
hence  to  the  Gentiles"?  It  is  not  likely,  to  say 
the  least.  But  let  us  examine  the  recorded  cases. 
The  first  is  that  of  Lydia,  the  seller  of  purple  at 
Philippi.  She  was  converted,  and  she  and  her 
household  were  baptized  (Acts  16:  I4f).  It  is 
assumed  by  pedobaptists,  apparently  with  great 
confidence,  that  there  were  infants  in  this  house- 
hold, and  that  Paul,  therefore,  baptized  infants. 
But  several  things  are  to  be  noted  in  connection 

3 


34  Infant-Baptism. 

with  the  case.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no 
mention  of  infants  or  even  of  a  husband.  The 
claim  that  there  were  children  of  any  age  is  a 
pure  assumption,  for  the  word  "household"  may 
mean  servants  or  employees  as  in  the  case  of 
"Caesar's  household''  (Phil.  4:  22),  where  it  can 
mean  only  imperial  employees.  Certainly  none 
of  the  imperial  children,  Nero's  children,  were 
members  of  the  church  of  Rome  at  that  time. 
Lydia  was  a  merchant  woman  far  from  her 
Asiatic  home  at  Thyatira,  engaged  in  business,  a 
consideration  which  makes  it  intrinsically  improb- 
able that  she  had  infant  children.  Almost  cer- 
tainly "household"  here  means  employees.  Be- 
ing a  pious  woman,  she  had  "gathered  about  her 
a  company  of  like-minded  workers  who  would  be 
prepared  to  receive  the  gospel.  Doubtless  her 
own  piety  had  further  prepared  them,  so  that 
Paul  found  in  them  a  ripe  field  which  quickly 
yielded  to  the  gospel  story.  The  Lord  opened 
their  hearts  to  receive  the  gospel  as  he  did  that 
of  their  mistress,  and  so  Paul  baptized  them  on 
precisely  the  same  conditions  on  which  he  bap- 
tized their  employer.  This  is  certainly  the  most 
reasonable  and  intrinsically  probable  view  to  take 
of  this  incident.  It  may  be  that  the  nucleus  of 
the  church  of  Philippi  was  in  the  sales-rooms 
of  Lydia.  Certainly  if  the  presence  of  in- 
fants in  this  household  cannot  be  emphatically 
denied,  neither  can  it  be  categorically  asserted. 
The  next  case  to  claim  attention  is  that  of  the 
jailer  at  Philippi    who    was    baptized  with  his 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  35 

household,  "all  his"  (Acts  16:  33).  In  this  in- 
stance the  household  certainly  had  no  infants, 
for  when  the  alarmed  and  repentant  jailer  fell 
trembling  at  the  feet  of  the  missionaries  and  asked 
what  he  must  do  to  be  saved,  Paul  replied,  **Be- 
lieve  on  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved, 
thou  and  thy  house"  (verse  31).  These  instruc- 
tions mean  either  that  the  "house"  is  to  be  saved 
on  the  same  terms  as  the  jailer,  that  is,  by  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  or  that  the  jailer's  faith  will  serve 
for  the  salvation  of  the  entire  household.  Clearly 
the  "house"  is  expected  to  believe  like  the  head 
of  the  house,  and  only  such  as  believed  would  be 
saved.  Vicarious  faith  is  unknown  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. In  complete  harmony  with  this  view  "they 
spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  him,  with  all 
that  were  in  his  house,"  and  when  they  accepted 
the  good  news,  they  were  baptized,  "he  and  all 
his,  immediately."  He  then  "brought  them  up 
into  his  house,  and  set  food  before  them,  and  re- 
joiced greatly,  with  all  his  house,  having  be- 
lieved in  God"  (verse  34).  All  those  in  this 
household  were  expected  to  believe  and  be  saved 
like  the  jailer,  the  word  was  preached  to  them  as 
to  him,  they  were  baptized  like  him  when  they 
believed,  they  rejoiced  like  him  after  their  bap- 
tism. Clearly  there  were  no  infants  in  this  house- 
hold. 

The  other  two  cases  of  household  baptisms 
took  place  at  Corinth.  They  are  the  households 
of  Stephanas  and  Crispus.  The  former  "house" 
contributed  the   "first  fruits,"  that  is,   the  first 


36  Infant-Baptism. 

converts,  not  only  of  the  city  of  Corinth,  but  also 
of  the  whole  district  of  Achaia  (i  Cor.  i6:  15). 
Luke,  in  Acts,  tells  us  nothing  of  the  circum- 
stances of  their  conversion,  but  Paul  says  ( i  Cor. 
1 :  16)  that  he  himself  baptized  this  household 
among  the  few  baptisms  which  he  administered 
at  Corinth.  Stephanas  was  later  an  active  and 
useful  Christian  man  as  he  with  two  other  breth- 
ren crossed  the  JEgean  sea  to  Ephesus  to  minister 
to  Paul  during  his  long  mission  in  that  great 
city.  As  in  the  other  cases  of  household  bap- 
tisms, nothing  is  said  of  any  infants  in  this  case; 
and  there  is  a  strong  presumption  against  their 
presence,  because  when  Paul  wrote  from  Ephesus 
to  this  church  three  or  four  years  later,  he  says 
that  the  household  of  Stephanas  "have  set  them- 
selves to  minister  unto  the  saints"  (i  Cor.  16: 
15).  This  could  hardly  be  said  if  part  of  the 
family  were  infants  at  the  time  of  their  baptism 
shortly  before. 

Crispus  was  a  very  prominent  Jew  of  Corinth, 
the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  on  Paul's  arrival.  He, 
too,  was  baptized  by  Paul  himself,  doubtless  with 
all  his  house,  though  that  is  not  stated.  In  his 
case,  however,  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  he  "be- 
lieved in  the  Lord  with  all  his  house,"  a  state- 
ment which  absolutely  excludes  the  presence  of 
infants  in  his  household.  The  effect  of  the  con- 
version of  this  prominent  family  was  very  great, 
for  "many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing  believed, 
and  were  baptized"  (Acts  18:  8). 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  37 

These  are  the  cases  of  household  baptism  upon 
which  our  pedobaptist  brethren  are  accustomed 
to  lay  so  much  stress  as  proofs  of  the  practice  of 
infant-baptism  by  the  apostles.  But  it  has  been 
fairly  shown  that  in  every  instance  the  presump- 
tion is  clearly  against  rather  than  in  favor  of 
the  presence  in  the  households  of  infants  or  chil- 
dren too  young  to  believe.  Even  in  a  Christian 
land  like  ours  every  Baptist  preacher  with  much 
experience  has  been  called  on  to  baptize  whole 
households,  who  together  had  accepted  the  Lord 
Jesus.  In  the  mission  work  of  the  first  century 
when  there  had  been  such  wide-spread  provi- 
dential preparation  for  the  preaching  of  the  gos- 
pel whole  families  must  have  accepted  the  gospel 
together  very  frequently. 

Moreover,  if  these  passages  prove  the  practice 
of  infant-baptism,  they  would  prove  entirely  too 
much  for  evangelical  pedobaptists ;  for  it  is  as- 
sumed in  the  text  that  those  baptized  were  saved. 
Now,  if  there  were  infants  and  they  were  saved, 
it  was  accomplished  through  the  faith  of  their 
parents,  that  is,  entirely  by  proxy,  or  by  the  mag- 
ical effects  of  baptism.  And,  still  further,  these 
children  were  not  born  of  parents  who  were  be- 
lievers when  the  children  were  born,  so  that  they 
could  not  have  inherited  the  blessings  which  are 
by  some  pedobaptists  supposed  to  accrue  to  the 
children  of  Christian  parents  in  a  Christian  fam- 
ily. These  cases  could,  therefore,  afford  no 
ground  for  the  contention  that  baptism  succeeds 
circumcision  and  must  be  limited  to  the  children 


38  Infant-Baptism. 

of  Christian  parents.  None  of  the  reasons  for 
baptizing  infants  which  are  usually  advanced  in 
modern  times  could  possibly  have  been  operative 
in  these  instances  of  household  baptism,  even  if 
it  were  granted  that  infants  were  present  and 
baptized.  Our  modern  evangelical  pedobaptist 
overthrows  his  own  arguments  by  citing  these 
instances. 

Christian  households  are  mentioned  in  a  few 
other  passages  by  Paul  (Rom.  i6:  lo,  ii;  Phil. 
4:  22;  2  Tim.  i:  15-18;  4:  19).  In  every  in- 
stance there  is  a  strong  presumption  against  the 
presence  of  infants  in  these  households  and  in 
one  case,  that  of  Narcissus  (Rom.  16:  11),  the 
believing  members  of  the  house  are  distinguished 
from  the  unbelieving.  The  conclusion  seems  in- 
evitable that  the  so-called  household  baptisms 
give  no  support  to  the  practice  of  infant-baptism. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


INFANT-BAPTISM  AND  THE  SCRIP- 
TURIES,  CONTINUED. 


Two  other  passages  are  frequently  cited  in 
support  of  the  practice  of  infant-baptism.  They 
are  Acts  2 :  39  and  i  Cor.  10 :  2.  The  first  pas- 
sage is  in  the  midst  of  Peter's  sermon  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  When  his  trenchant  discourse 
led  his  hearers  to  cry  out,  "Brethren,  what  shall 
we  do?"  he  responded,  "Repent  ye,  and  be  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  unto  the  remission  of  your  sins;  and  ye 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  just 
as  the  little  Christian  company  had  done.  "For 
to  you  is  the  promise,  and  to  your  children,  and 
to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call  unto  him."  It  is  claimed  that 
the  word  "children"  in  this  passage  warrants  the 
baptism  of  infants,  for  the  promise  is  to  the  chil- 
dren as  to  those  who  heard  and  understood  Pe- 
ter. But  is  this  the  meaning?  "Children"  here 
does  not  mean  "infants"  but  "offspring"  or  "de- 
scendants." What  is  the  meaning,  then,  of  the 
passage  ?  It  seems  to  be  about  as  follows :  "You 
see  that  we  have  obtained  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  according  to  the  promise  of  Joel  2 :  28 ;  but 
this  promise  was  not  intended  for  us  alone;  re- 

(39) 


40  Infant-Baptism. 

pent  therefore,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  you,  too,  as 
well  as  we,  will  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
for  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  is  to  you  also;  in 
fact  it  is  not  limited  to  you,  for  it  is  to  your  chil- 
dren (offspring),  and  indeed  to  all  that  are  afar 
off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call, 
on  exactly  the  same  terms,  namely,  repentance, 
faith  and  baptism."  Faith  is  implied,  of  course. 
Peter  simply  means  that  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  will  be  conferred  on  his  hearers  and  their 
children  and  ''all  that  are  afar  off"  if  they  com- 
ply with  the  conditions  of  repentance,  faith  and 
baptism;  he  means  to  say  that  that  little  group 
of  Christians  have  no  monopoly  on  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Spirit,  but  that  he  will  be  given  to 
all  others  on  the  same  conditions.  Infants  can- 
not repent;  they  are  not,  therefore,  baptized  nor 
do  they  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  prom- 
ised by  Joel.  In  accordance  with  these  conditions, 
the  narrative  proceeds  to  say,  "They  then  that 
received  his  word  were  baptized."  None  except 
those  who  received  the  word  were  baptized,  and 
hence  no  infants.  The  passage  not  only  affords 
no  ground  for  infant-baptism,  but  directly  and 
powerfully  opposes  the  practice. 

The  second  passage,  i  Cor.  lo:  2,  is  equally 
conclusive  against  infant-baptism  when  it  is 
studied  in  its  context.  Paul  is  pleading  with  the 
Corinthian  church  to  abstain  from  the  gross  sins 
which  had  once  characterized  them  and  which 
had  not  been  wholly  rooted  out.    He  warns  them 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  41 

by  recalling  the  sorrowful  history  of  Israel,  say- 
ing in  effect,  "Beware,  remember  the  fate  of  Is- 
rael! They,  too,  were  baptized  between  the 
cloud  and  the  sea  unto  Moses  even  as  you  were 
baptized  unto  Christ;  they,  too,  all  ate  the  same 
spiritual  food  and  drank  the  same  spiritual  drink 
which  you  enjoy,  for  they  drank  of  the  Rock 
Christ  who  was  following  them ;  notwithstanding 
these  facts,  God  was  displeased  with  most  of  them 
and  overthrew  them  in  the  wilderness;  they 
passed  through  substantially  the  same  experiences 
as  you  and  yet  they  perished;  beware,  therefore, 
and  live  righteously."  It  is  argued  by  pedobap- 
tists  that  the  infants  as  well  as  the  adults  of  Is- 
rael were  baptized  figuratively  as  they  crossed 
the  Red  Sea,  and  that  it  must  have  been  custom- 
ary to  baptize  the  infants  of  Christian  parents 
when  Paul  wrote,  else  his  illustration  would  not 
have  been  appropriate.  But  it  should  be  ob- 
served that  nothing  is  said  here  about  Christian 
baptism ;  therefore,  whatever  conclusion  is  drawn 
must  be  by  way  of  inference.  Moreover, 
analogies  are  rarely  capable  of  application  in 
every  particular.  But  supposing  the  analogy  in 
this  case  to  be  complete,  what  bearing  does  the 
passage  have  on  the  practice  of  infant-baptism? 
It  is  true  that  Hebrew  infants  were  figuratively 
immersed  along  with  the  adults  between  the  cloud 
and  the  sea  as  the  nation  crossed.  But  is  Paul 
thinking  of  the  infants  as  baptized  unto  Moses 
that  day  along  with  the  adults?  Certainly  not. 
He  is  considering  those  only  who  ate  the  spiritual 


42  Infant-Baptism. 

food  and  drank  the  spiritual  drink  and  who  then 
displeased  God  and  as  a  consequence  fell  in  the 
wilderness.  These  and  these  only  were 
thought  of  as  having  been  baptized  in  the 
sea.  Reference  to  the  incident  to  which 
Paul  refers  shows  that  those  who  died 
were  twenty  years  old  and  upward  shortly  after 
they  crossed  the  sea  when  they  refused  to  go  up 
and  take  the  land,  that  is,  they  were  all  over 
eighteen  years  of  age  when  they  were  baptized 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  (Num.  14: 
29ff;  26:  64f).  Those  under  this  age  did  not 
fall  in  the  wilderness  but  entered  the  promised 
land,  and  therefore  could  not  have  been  any  part 
of  Paul's  illustration.  They  did  not  come  into 
his  mind  as  baptized,  simply  because  he  knew 
nothing  of  infant-baptism  even  as  his  readers  did 
not.  It  was  not  the  unresponsible  infants,  but 
the  conscious  adults  who  were  baptized  and  later 
rebelled  against  Moses  who  afforded  such  a  strik- 
ing warning  to  sinful  church  members  at  Corinth. 

But  while  these  passages  fail  to  estabhsh  the 
apostolic  character  of  infant-baptism,  and  in  most 
cases  actually  weigh  against  belief  in  its  apostolic 
origin  when  considered  in  the  light  of  their  con- 
texts, we  are  not  left  to  these  passages  alone; 
much  other  positive  information  as  to  the  prac- 
tice of  these  early  Christian  workers  can  be  found. 

Philip  was  one  of  the  "seven"  selected  by 
the  church  of  Jerusalem  to  serve  tables.  He 
was  evidently  in  thorough  harmony  with  the 
mother  church  as  is  shown  by  their  confidence. 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  43 

When  he  with  the  rest  were  driven  away  by  the 
fury  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  he  went  down  to  Samaria 
and  began  preaching  there.  His  labors  were  at- 
tended with  great  success  and  "when  they  be- 
lieved PhiHp  .  .  .  they  were  baptized,  both 
men  and  women.  And  Simon  also  himself  be- 
lieved :  and  being  baptized,  he  continued,**  etc. 
Evidently  Philip  baptized  none  but  believers,  and 
he  must  have  represented  the  practice  of  the  Je- 
rusalem church  at  that  time  (Acts  8:  I2f). 

Paul's  practice  and  views  are  further  elucidated 
by  passages  in  his  letters.  In  Romans  6:  1-7, 
he  discusses  the  status  of  those  who  have  been 
baptized.  They  have  been  sinners  but  have  died 
to  sin  and  can  no  longer  continue  therein;  they 
have  been  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ;  the 
old  man  of  sin  has  been  crucified  with  him  and 
buried  with  him.  Certainly  such  statements  as 
these  could  not  be  made  about  unconscious  in- 
fants. 

Again  he  mentions  baptism  in  the  letter  to  the 
churches  of  Galatia  (3:  2y).  Arguing  against 
their  lapse  into  legal  righteousness  he  says :  "Ye 
are  all  sons  of  God,  through  faith,  in  Jesus  Christ. 
For  as  many  of  you  as  were  baptized  into  Christ 
did  put  on  Christ."  Manifestly  only  those  were 
baptized  in  the  Galatian  churches  who  were  sons 
of  God  "through  faith." 

In  Colossians  2 :  12,  Paul  again  links  baptism 
with  faith,  saying  to  the  Colossian  church,  you 
were  "buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye 
were  also  raised  with  him  through  faith  in  the 


44  Infant-Baptism. 

working  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
Faith  was  present  in  this  baptism.  In  fact,  there 
is  nothing  in  Paul's  writings  which  fairly  inter- 
preted gives  the  slightest  warrant  for  the  belief 
that  he  knew  anything  of  infant-baptism.  First 
Corinthians  7:  14  counts  directly  and  positively 
against  the  existence  of  the  practice. 

One  passage  in  Peter's  First  Letter  (3:  21) 
throws  some  further  light  on  his  views  and  prac- 
tice. He  says  baptism  is  "not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  interrogation  of 
a  good  conscience  toward  God."  With  this  con- 
ception of  baptism  it  could  not  be  administered 
except  where  there  is  a  conscience,  that  is,  to 
persons  who  have  come  to  years  of  moral  ac- 
countability.    Infants  are  excluded. 

One  other  scriptural  argument  in  favor  of  in- 
fant-baptism must  be  noticed.  It  is  the  claim 
that  baptism  succeeded  to  circumcision  and 
should,  therefore,  be  administered  to  infants  as 
circumcision  was.  This  argument  is  regarded 
as  very  strong  and  even  conclusive  by  some  of 
the  advocates  of  infant-baptism.  Let  us  examine 
this  contention.  In  the  first  place  certain  very 
striking  differences  between  circumcision  and 
baptism  should  be  noted :  Circumcision  was 
based  on  natural  birth,  baptism  on  a  spiritual  re- 
birth ;  omission  of  circumcision  was  accompanied 
by  certain  definite  and  very  serious  material  and 
temporal  consequences,  while  no  one  can  point 
to  any  harmful  consequences  of  any  kind  due  to 
the  omission  of  infant-baptism ;  circumcision  was 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures.  45 

administered  to  Jewish  male  children  only,  while 
baptism  is  administered  to  both  sexes  of  every 
race ;  circumcision  was  racial,  baptism  is  personal 
and  for  all  races ;  the  Jews  who  had  been  circum- 
cised in  infancy  were  nevertheless  baptized  on 
their  conversion  to  Christianity  and  a  large  sec- 
tion of  Jewish  Christians  (the  so-called  Juda- 
izers)  believed  that  the  Gentile  Christians  must 
not  only  be  baptized,  but  also  be  circumcised 
after  baptism,  two  facts  which  show  conclusively 
that  Jewish  Christians  did  not  regard  baptism  as 
a  substitute  for  circumcision.  The  Jewish  oppo- 
sition to  Christianity  would  have  been  still  more 
violent  if  the  Jews  had  thought  that  baptism  abol- 
ished circumcision  by  succeeding  to  it. 

Let  us  now  see  if  the  Scriptures  themselves  fur- 
nish any  basis  for  this  contention.  As  the  gos- 
pel spread  into  communities  composed  of  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  the  distinction  between  circum- 
cised and  uncircumcised  gave  the  Christian 
churches  great  trouble.  The  deepest  cleft  in  the 
social  body  of  that  ancient  world  was  the  dis- 
tinction between  Jew  and  Gentile.  How  did 
Christianity  transcend  and  overcome  this  rift? 
It  was  not  accomplished  without  great  strife  and 
difficulty  extending  over  many  years.  Paul  as 
the  leading  missionary  to  the  Gentiles  felt  the 
full  weight  of  the  burden  through  all  the  years 
of  his  later  life.  How  useless  the  controversy  and 
how  simple  the  solution  if  only  he  and  the  other 
Christians  had  understood  that  baptism  succeeded 
to  circumcision  as  pedobaptists  allege!    All  that 


46  Infant-Baptism. 

long  and  painful  controversy  with  the  Judaizers 
which  has  left  such  a  deep  mark  on  Acts,  Romans 
and  Galatians,  would  have  been  avoided.  But  the 
converts  from  the  Jews  were  baptized  on  their 
profession  of  faith  notwithstanding  their  circum- 
cision, and  the  Judaizers  contended  that  the  con- 
verts from  paganism  must  be  circumcised  not- 
withstanding their  baptism.  Now,  if  Paul  had 
only  been  sufficiently  informed,  as  some  pedo- 
baptists  are,  concerning  the  relation  between  bap- 
tism and  circumcision,  he  could  have  said :  "You 
are  all  very  foolish.  Baptism  succeeds  circum- 
cision ;  therefore,  the  Jews  who  are  converted  do 
not  need  to  be  baptized  and  the  pagans  who  are 
converted  and  baptized  do  not  need  to  be  cir- 
cumcised." But  he  did  not  meet  the  difficulty  in 
this  way.  What  did  he  do?  He  nowhere  even 
intimated  that  there  was  any  relation  or  even 
analogy  between  circumcision  and  baptism,  much 
less  that  one  succeeded  the  other.  He  argued 
with  the  Judaizers  that  the  original  basis  of  jus- 
tification was  faith  not  circumcision  (a  doctrine 
which  had  also  been  taught  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment: Deut.  lo:  i6;  30:  6;  Jer.  4:  4;  9:  26), 
and  that  Abraham  "received  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had  while  he  was  in  uncircumcision : 
that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve" (Rom.  4:  11);  that  circumcision  never 
profited  except  as  it  was  accompanied  by  obedi- 
ence, for  "if  thou  be  a  transgressor  of  the  law, 
thy  circumcision  is  become  uncircumcision"  and 


Infant-Baptism  and  Scriptures,  47 

useless  (Rom.  2:  25);  that  it  is  now  abolished 
or  succeeded  by  faith  in  Christ,  "For  he  is  not  a 
Jew  who  is  one  outwardly;  neither  is  that  cir- 
cumcision which  is  outward  in  the  flesh:  but  he 
is  a  Jew  who  is  one  inwardly;  and  circumcision 
is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit  not  in  the  letter" 
(Rom.  2 :  28f )  ;  *'Was  any  man  called  being  cir- 
cumcised ?  let  him  not  become  uncircumcised.  Cir- 
cumcision is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  noth- 
ing" (i  Cor.  7:  i8f)  ;  "Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto 
you,  that,  if  ye  receive  circumcision,  Christ  will 
profit  you  nothing  .  .  .  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither 
circumcision  availeth  anything,  nor  uncircumci- 
sion; but  faith  working  through  love"  (Gal.  5: 
2  and  6)  ;  "As  many  as  desire  to  make  a  fair  show 
in  the  flesh,  they  compel  you  to  be  circumcised; 
only  that  they  may  not  be  persecuted  for  the  cross 
of  Christ.  .  .  .  For  neither  is  circumcision  any- 
thing, nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature" 
(Gal.  6:  12,  15)  ;  in  Christ  "ye  were  also  cir- 
cumcised with  a  circumcision  not  made  with 
hands,  in  the  putting  off  of  the  body  of  the  flesh, 
in  the  circumcision  of  Christ"  (Col.  2:  11)  ;  "for 
we  are  the  circumcision,  who  worship  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  glory  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have 
no  confidence  in  the  flesh"  (Phil.  3:3).  These 
passages  are  sufficient  (they  could  be  greatly 
multiplied)  to  show  that  Paul  had  no  idea  what- 
soever that  baptism  succeeded  circumcision. 
Rather  the  old  ceremony  was  abolished  by  the 
cross  of  Christ;  circumcision,  if  the  old  verbiage 
must  be  retained,  is  of  the  heart,  not  made  by 


48  Infant-Baptism. 

hands  but  by  faith  in  Christ.  He  that  insists  on 
circumcision  makes  the  cross  void.  In  all  the 
multitude  of  passages  in  which  Paul  treats  cir- 
cumcision he  couples  it  with  baptism  but  once 
(Col.  2:  iif),  and  there  he  bases  baptism  on 
faith.  If  baptism  is  in  any  sense  like  circum- 
cision it  is  the  circumcision  of  Abraham  himself, 
based  on  his  faith,  and  not  that  of  his  descend- 
ants based  on  birth  and  racial  descent. 

All  the  pedobaptist  arguments  from  Scripture 
are  utterly  worthless  and  futile,  and  many  of  their 
scholars  are  recognizing  this  fact  and  transferring 
the  basis  of  argument  to  another  field,  as  will  be 
seen  in  a  later  chapter. 


CHAPTER  V. 


INFANT-BAPTISM  APPEARS  AT  END  OF 
SECOND  CENTURY. 


Not  only  is  there  no  warrant  in  the  Scriptures 
for  the  belief  that  infant-baptism  was  practiced 
or  enjoined  either  by  Christ  or  the  apostles,  but 
subsequent  history  reveals  the  fact  that  it  did  not 
appear  anywhere  until  near  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  was  administered 
only  by  way  of  exception  for  centuries  after  that 
time. 

For  the  first  eighty  or  ninety  years  after  the 
death  of  the  last  apostle  there  is  not  the  faintest 
trace  in  Christian  literature  of  the  practice.  From 
many  parts  of  the  Christian  world  literature  from 
this  period  has  been  preserved  and  handed  down 
to  us,  and  in  this  literature  repentance  and  faith 
are  everywhere  assumed  as  conditions  of  baptism. 
Nor  were  the  Christian  churches  of  that  period 
capable  of  that  hollow  mockery  in  which  a  proxy 
says  in  the  name  of  the  child,  'T  repent,"  *T  be- 
lieve." To  the  early  church  everything  connected 
with  its  religion  was  real,  genuine  and  vital. 
Each  one  repented,  believed  and  was  baptized 
for  himself.  The  age  of  magic  and  proxies  had 
not  come. 

*  (M) 


50  Infant-Baptism. 

Very  early  a  saving  significance  was  ascribed 
to  baptism,  but  repentance  and  faith  were  always 
required  before  baptism.  Baptism  was  always  a 
faith-baptism  even  though  it  was  thought  to  se- 
cure remission.  A  few  extracts  from  this  litera- 
ture will  show  the  accuracy  of  these  statements. 
In  the  following  pages  all  the  literature  of  any  im- 
portance which  has  any  bearing  on  the  subject  of 
infant-baptism  in  this  period  is  quoted. 

Probably  the  earliest  reference  to  baptism  in 
post-biblical  literature  is  found  in  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas.  Neither  the  place  nor  the  date  of  its 
composition  is  known,  but  it  probably  comes  from 
Syria  and  dates  from  lOO  to  120  A.D.  Some 
scholars  put  it  earlier.  Reference  is  made  to  bap- 
tism in  chapter  XI,  where  the  author  in  comment- 
ing on  Psalm  I  says:  "Blessed  are  they  who, 
placing  their  trust  in  the  cross,  have  gone  down 
into  the  water."  Later,  in  the  same  chapter,  in 
commenting  on  a  passage  in  Ezekiel,  he  says: 
'This  meaneth,  that  we  indeed  descend  into  the 
water  full  of  sins  and  defilement,  but  come  up, 
bearing  fruit  in  our  heart,  having  fear  and  trust 
in  Jesus  in  our  spirit."  The  author  finds  bap- 
tism in  passages  where  it  does  not  exist,  and 
gives  to  it  a  significance  which  it  never  had  in 
Scripture,  but  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  he 
knows  nothing  about  infant-baptism.  Those  who 
are  baptized  have  already  put  their  trust  in  the 
cross  and  they  come  up  from  the  water  with  the 
fear  and  trust  of  Jesus  in  their  spirits.  These 
are  not  the  experiences  of  unconscious  infants. 


Infant-Baptism  of  Second  Century.  51 

The  implication  against  the  practice  of  infant- 
baptism  at  this  date  is  unmistakable. 

Another  work  of  unknown  authorship,  prob- 
ably coming  from  the  same  period  and  region  as 
the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  is  "The  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles/'  It  is  a  sort  of  pastor's  hand- 
book, evidently  intended  for  general  circulation 
and  use  in  Christian  instruction.  It,  therefore, 
probably  represents  the  beliefs  and  practices  of 
a  wide  circle  of  Christians  about  120  A.D. 
Chapter  VII  gives  instructions  for  the  proper 
administration  of  baptism,  as  follows :  "Having 
first  said  all  these  things"  (1.  e.,  having  taught 
the  contents  of  the  preceding  chapters)  "baptize 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  etc.  .  .  .  But  before 
the  baptism  let  the  baptizer  fast,  and  the  bap- 
tized, and  whatever  others  can;  but  thou  shalt 
order  the  baptized  to  fast  one  or  two  days  be- 
fore." These  regulations  require  the  candidate 
to  be  instructed  in  the  moral  precepts  of  the 
earlier  chapters  of  the  book,  and  to  fast  at  least 
two  days  before  baptism.  These  are  rather  hard 
conditions  to  be  imposed  upon  infants.  Manifestly 
the  author  knows  nothing  of  infant-baptism. 
Baptism  so  far  as  he  knows  it  is  administered 
to  those  who  can  learn  and  fast,  and  to  no  others. 

The  ablest  Christian  writer  of  the  second  cen- 
tury was  Justin  Martyr.  He  was  born  about  1 10 
A.D.,  at  Samaria,  in  Palestine,  of  Gentile  par- 
ents. He  obtained  a  finished  education  and  trav- 
eled widely,  devoting  himself  to  the  study  of  vari- 
ous systems  of  philosophy  in  a  vain  attempt  to 


52  Infant-Baptism. 

find  satisfaction  for  his  mind  and  his  heart.  After 
his  very  striking  and  interesting  conversion  to 
Christianity  he  spent  the  remainder  of  his  Hfe 
in  the  service  of  his  new-found  faith,  traveHng, 
writing,  conversing,  debating  with  all  whom  he 
met,  while  he  continued  to  wear  his  philosopher's 
cloak.  He  thus  learned  the  practices  of  the 
churches  by  direct  contact  with  them  over  wide 
areas  of  the  ancient  Christian  world,  and  there- 
fore speaks  with  unusual  weight  on  all  matters 
pertaining  to  the  Christian  customs  of  his  time. 
About  145  A.D.  he  addressed  an  "Apology,"  or 
defense  of  the  Christians,  to  the  Emperor  Antoni- 
nus Pius  and  the  Roman  people,  in  which  he  re- 
futed the  charges  made  against  the  Christians  and 
carefully  explained  just  what  they  did  practice. 
In  chapter  LXI  he  describes  and  explains  to  his 
pagan  opponents  and  persecutors  Christian  bap- 
tism. He  says  to  them:  "I  will  also  relate  the 
manner  in  which  we  dedicated  ourselves  to  God 
when  we  had  been  made  new  through  Christ. 
...  As  many  as  are  persuaded  and  believe  that 
what  we  teach  and  say  is  true,  and  undertake  to 
be  able  to  live  accordingly,  are  instructed  to  pray 
and  to  entreat  God  with  fasting,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  their  sins  that  are  past,  we  praying  and 
fasting  with  them.  Then  they  are  brought  by 
us  where  there  is  water,  and  are  regenerated  in 
the  same  manner  in  which  we  were  ourselves 
regenerated.  For  in  the  name  of  God,  the  Father 
and  Lord  of  the  universe,  and  of  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  then  re- 
ceive the  washing  with  water." 


Infant-Baptism  of  Second  Century.  53 

In  chapter  LXV  he  continues,  in  treating  of 
the  Supper :  "But  we,  after  we  have  thus  washed 
him  who  has  been  convinced  and  has  consented 
to  our  teaching,  we  bring  him  to  the  place  where 
those  who  are  called  brethren  are  assembled,  in 
order  that  we  may  offer  hearty  prayers  in  com- 
mon for  ourselves  and  for  the  baptized  person.  .  .  . 
Having  ended  the  prayers,  we  salute  one  another 
with  a  kiss.  There  is  then  brought  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  brethren  bread  and  a  cup  of  wine 
mixed  with  water,"  and  the  Supper  is  celebrated. 

It  is  perfectly  evident  that  Justin,  while  believ- 
ing that  baptism  is  the  bath  of  regeneration,  yet 
knows  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  Those 
who  are  baptized  have  committed  sins,  they  choose 
to  be  born  again,  they  repent  and  believe  the 
Christian  teachings  and  undertake  to  live  accord- 
ingly, they  fast  and  pray  before  baptism  and  join 
in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  immedi- 
ately afterwards.  These  are  not  the  experiences 
of  infants.  And  in  this  connection  it  should  be 
noted  that  this  widely  traveled  Christian  man  is 
stating  not  his  own  convictions  and  practices  only, 
but  the  practices  of  the  Christian  churches  in  gen- 
eral throughout  the  Roman  empire  for  the  infor- 
mation of  the  Roman  emperor  and  people.  Had 
he  been  perverting  the  facts  his  deception  could 
have  been  exposed  by  hosts  of  his  readers.  Evi- 
dently the  churches  in  the  Roman  empire  at  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  were  unacquainted 
with  any  baptism  other  than  faith-baptism. 


54  Infant-Baptism. 

The  next  writer  to  be  considered  is  Hermas. 
He  was  a  brother  of  Pius,  bishop  of  the  church  of 
Rome  from  about  140  to  154.  His  position  as 
brother  of  the  Roman  bishop  gave  him  excep- 
tional opportunities  for  acquaintance  with  the  be- 
Uefs  and  practices  of  the  Christian  world,  for 
Rome  was  the  center  of  Christian  life  for  all  the 
western  churches  and  kept  up  intimate  relations, 
with  those  of  the  East  as  well.  About  160  Her- 
mas wrote  a  strange  apocalyptic  book  which  he 
called  the  "Shepherd."  It  was  held  in  such  high 
esteem  by  the  churches  of  that  day  that  it  was 
long  read  in  the  public  services  as  the  books  now 
in  our  New  Testament  were  used.  It  must,  there- 
fore, have  represented  the  beliefs  and  practices 
of  that  time,  else  it  would  not  have  been  so  used. 
Like  Justin  a  few  years  earlier,  it  ascribes  sav- 
ing efficacy  to  baptism,  knowing  no  other  means 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  As  seen  in  "Vision" 
III,  chapters  II  to  IX,  and  in  "Similitude"  IX,  the 
growing  "Church"  is  compared  to  a  tower  which 
is  being  built  upon  the  water  and  whose  stones 
are  drawn  up  out  of  the  water,  indicating  that 
Hermas  regards  baptism  as  the  very  founda- 
tion of  the  Church.  But  there  is  not  an 
intimation  of  infant-baptism.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  implication  is  very  clear  for  faith-bap- 
tism. In  "Commandment"  IV,  chapter  III, 
Hermas  says  to  his  angelic  instructor,  "I  heard 
sir,  some  teachers  maintain  that  there  is  no  other 
repentance  than  that  which  takes  place  when  we 
descended  into  the  water  and  received  remission 


Infant-Baptism  of  Second  Century.  55 

of  our  sins."  Baptism  is  believed  to  secure  re- 
mission but  it  is  preceded  by  repentance,  and  so 
infant-baptism  is  excluded.  Infants  were  re- 
garded by  Hernias  as  innocent  and  since  baptism 
in  his  thought  was  for  the  removal  of  sin,  it  never 
occurred  to  him  that  they  should  be  baptized. 
(SimiHtude  IX,  chapters  XVI,  XXIX,  XXXI.) 

For  about  thirty  years  after  the  date  of  the 
"Shepherd"  we  have  no  literature  of  any  impor- 
tance bearing  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  But 
near  the  end  of  the  second  century  three  men  of 
capital  importance  to  the  history  of  Christianity 
appear  in  widely  separated  regions.  They  are 
Clement  in  Egypt,  Irenseus  in  Gaul  or  modern 
France,  and  TertuUian  in  North  Africa.  All  of 
them  were  men  of  the  highest  ability  and  of  great 
learning  and  influence;  consequently  their  testi- 
mony is  of  the  greatest  value.  Let  us  see  what 
we  can  glean  from  their  extensive  writings. 

Clement  was  the  most  cultured  Christian  of  his 
day,  having  traveled  and  studied  in  all  the  lands 
of  the  eastern  Mediterranean.  From  193  to  202 
he  was  head  of  the  catechetical  school  at  Alexan- 
dria, the  greatest  Christian  school  of  the  ancient 
world.  In  connection  with  his  teaching  he  wrote 
extensively,  and  various  writings  have  been  pre- 
served to  us.  In  a  work  entitled  "The  Peda- 
gogue," or  "Instructor,"  he  sets  forth  his  ideal 
of  Christian  teachings,  practices  and  life.  The 
book  is  intended  for  general  use  as  a  manual  for 
the  instruction  of  Christians.  Naturally  it  treats 
baptism  along  with  other  subjects  on  which  some 


56  Infant-Baptism. 

instruction  was  felt  to  be  necessary.  These  in- 
structions for  Christian  readers  are  exactly  in  ac- 
cord with  what  we  have  already  learned  from 
earlier  writers.  He  believes  that  baptism  is  the 
appointed  means  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  he 
knows  nothing  of  infant-baptism.  In  Book  I, 
chapter  VI,  he  assigns  wonderful  power  to  bap- 
tism, but  says :  "Instruction  leads  to  faith,  and 
faith  with  baptism  is  trained  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
In  another  connection  he  says :  **In  the  same 
way,  therefore,  we  also,  repenting  of  our  sins,  re- 
nouncing our  iniquities,  purified  by  baptism, 
speed  back  to  the  eternal  light,  children  to  the 
Father."  He  makes  baptism  follow  repentance 
and  renunciation  of  sins,  and  there  is  not  in  this 
book  intended  for  Christian  instruction  or  in  any 
other  of  his  voluminous  writings  a  line  to  indi- 
cate that  he  had  ever  heard  of  infant-baptism. 

Even  pedobaptist  writers  admit  that  the  litera- 
ture of  the  second  century  so  far  examined  is 
silent  about  infant-baptism,  though  they  fail  to 
see  its  powerful  support  of  faith-baptism.  But 
we  have  reached  the  point  where  they  claim  to 
discover  the  practice  of  a  non-faith  baptism  of 
infants.  As  we  approach  the  study  of  these  docu- 
ments let  us  remember  that  they  were  written 
nearly  a  century  after  the  death  of.  the  last  apos- 
tle, time  enough  for  momentous  changes  in  the 
beliefs  and  practices  of  the  Christian  world  as  we 
have  already  seen. 

Irenseus  was  born  in  Asia  Minor  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  and  died  at  Lyons, 


Infant-Baptism  of  Second  Century.  57 

in  France,  after  190.  He  studied  under  the 
famous  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  and  went  while  still 
a  young  man  with  the  Greek  emigrants  to  Lyons, 
where  he  became  bishop  in  177.  His  official  posi- 
tion in  this  the  most  important  church  in  that  part 
of  the  world  at  that  time  afforded  excellent  oppor- 
tunities for  knowing  Christian  usages,  and  also 
laid  upon  him  exceptional  responsibility  for  pre- 
serving and  perpetuating  these  usages.  More- 
over, he  had  come  from  Asia,  where  he  had  been 
trained  in  the  best  Christian  practices,  into  the 
West  in  his  young  manhood.  On  his  long  jour- 
ney he  had  almost  certainly  visited  many  of  the 
leading  churches  on  the  northern  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean,  learning  at  first  hand  their  usages. 
Surely  if  any  one  will  know  and  insist  on  strict 
observance  of  correct  ecclesiastical  ceremonial  it 
is  he.  Does  he  insist  on  the  practice  of  infant- 
baptism?  He  does  not  once  enjoin  it,  and  there 
is  no  case  of  its  administration  by  him.  No  one 
claims  the  discovery  of  either  in  his  writings. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  infant-baptism  is  implied 
in  one  passage  of  his  work  "Against  Heresies," 
published  about  190.  By  putting  together  two 
widely  separated  passages  (H,  22,  4,  and  HI,  17, 
i),  some  pedobaptist  scholars  claim  that  they  dis- 
cover infant-baptism.  The  first  passage  reads  as 
follows:  "He  (Jesus)  came  to  save  all  through 
means  of  himself — all,  I  say,  who  through  him 
are  born  again  to  God — infants,  and  children,  and 
boys,  and  youths,  and  old  men.  He  therefore 
passed  through  every  age,  becoming  an  infant  for 


58  Infant-Baptism. 

infants,  a  child  for  children,"  etc.  This  is  the 
crucial  passage.  With  it  is  coupled  the  second 
which  reads :  ''Giving  to  the  disciples  the  power 
of  regeneration  into  God,  he  said  to  them,  Go 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,"  etc.  It  is  argued  that  baptism  is 
recognized  in  the  second  passage  as  the  divinely- 
appointed  means  of  salvation  and  that  infants  are 
mentioned  in  the  first  passage  as  objects  of  sal- 
vation, and  that  therefore  infants  must  have  been 
baptized. 

The  passages  are  notable  in  the  baptismal  con- 
troversy, in  the  first  place,  because  they  constitute 
the  first  reference  to  infant-baptism  in  post- 
biblical  literature,  granting  that  they  refer  to  in- 
fant-baptism at  all;  and  in  the  second  place  be- 
cause infants  are  found  in  one  passage  and  bap- 
tism in  the  other,  which  is  located  in  another 
book.  In  the  former  of  these  passages  in  which 
infants  are  mentioned  it  is  said  that  Jesus  be- 
came an  infant  and  passed  through  infancy  to 
save  infants.  Baptism  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
passage  or  its  context.  All  that  is  said  is  that 
he  came  to  save  and  sanctify  infants  and  so  be- 
came an  infant.  It  requires  more  than  usual 
sagacity  to  discover  infant-baptism  here.  But 
granting  that  it  is  here  it  is  more  than  150  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ  before  it  appears.  Faith- 
baptism  has  often  been  described  and  enjoined 
in  these  years,  but  infant-baptism  has  not  once 
been  mentioned  in  any  way.  The  conclusion  that 
infant-baptism  was  neither  practiced  nor  known 


Infant-Baptism  of  Second  Century.  59 

earlier  than  Irenaeus  seems  irresistible,  and  it  is 
not  at  all  probable  that  he  knew  it.  Other  pas- 
sages distinctly  imply  that  he  did  not  know  any 
practice  other  than  faith-baptism. 

But  TertuUian,  the  next  writer  to  be  studied, 
was  certainly  acquainted  with  the  practice  of  bap- 
tizing children  who  were  too  young  to  exercise 
faith,  and  he  was  the  first  Christian  writer  of 
whom  this  can  be  asserted  with  confidence.  He 
was  born  of  pagan  parents  at  Carthage,  in  North 
Africa,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
He  was  educated  in  rhetoric  and  law  and  was 
converted  to  Christianity  in  mature  life.  The 
rest  of  his  Hfe  his  brilHant  talents  were  devoted 
to  the  defense  and  propagation  of  the  Christian 
faith.  He  was  not  a  widely  traveled  man,  but 
reflects  Christian  usage  and  opinion  in  North 
Africa. 

He  touches  on  baptism  in  many  of  his  writings, 
and  finally  composed  an  entire  treatise  on  that 
subject.  As  to  the  importance  of  baptism  and  its 
place  in  the  remission  of  sins  he  is  in  general 
accord  with  earlier  writers ;  it  is,  in  his  opinion, 
under  ordinary  circumstances  the  only  means  of 
remission,  but  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  for 
"sound  faith  is  secure  of  salvation,"  provided 
there  is  some  hindrance  to  the  acquisition  of  bap- 
tism. Repentance  and  faith  are  presupposed.  In 
describing  baptism  (de  corona  III)  he  says: 
"When  we  are  going  to  enter  the  water,  but  a 
little  before,  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation 
and  under  the  hand  of  the  president,  we  solemnly 


60  Infant-Baptism. 

profess  that  we  disown  the  devil,  and  his  pomp, 
and  his  angels.  Hereupon  we  are  thrice  im- 
mersed. .  .  .  Then,  when  we  are  taken  up 
(as  new-born  babes)  we  taste  first  of  all  a  mix- 
ture of  milk  and  honey,  and  from  that  day  we 
refrain  from  the  daily  bath  for  a  whole  week." 
This  is  certainly  a  faith-baptism ;  no  infant  could 
fulfill  the  conditions.  Moreover,  the  author  is 
describing  the  common  usage  of  the  North 
African  churches  at  this  time,  and  not  stating 
his  own  view  of  what  baptism  ought  to  be. 

Again  in  his  tract  on  ''Repentance,"  chapter 
VI,  he  urges  on  his  readers  that  repentance  must 
be  genuine  and  fruitful  of  good  works,  but  should 
then  be  followed  by  baptism  as  the  seal.  Some 
who  professed  repentance,  relying  on  baptism  to 
remove  all  sin  at  the  end  of  life,  were  postponing 
baptism  and  continuing  in  sin.  Against  this  cus- 
tom he  contends  earnestly  that  "baptismal  wash- 
ing is  a  sealing  of  faith,  which  faith  is  begun 
and  is  commended  by  the  faith  of  repentance. 
We  are  not  washed  in  order  that  we  may  cease 
sinning,  but  because  we  have  ceased,  since  in 
heart  we  have  been  bathed  already."  This  was 
Tertullian's  view  as  well  as  the  usual  practice,  but 
it  was  not  the  sole  opinion  in  North  Africa  about 
this  time.  In  his  tract  "On  Baptism,"  written 
some  years  later,  he  reveals  and  opposes  what 
was  probably  the  very  beginnings  of  child-bap- 
tism. Certainly  it  is  the  first  mention  of  the  prac- 
tice in  literature.  In  chapter  XVIII  of  this  tract 
he  discusses  the  persons  who  are  to  be  baptized. 


Infant-Baptism  of  Second  Century.  gl 

He  says  a  new  danger  has  arisen ;  people  are  ac- 
cepting baptism  rashly  and  without  proper  spirit- 
ual preparation.  ''But  they  whose  office  it  is,  know 
that  baptism  is  not  rashly  to  be  administered." 
He  admits  that  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  and  Paul 
were  baptized  quickly,  but  he  contends  that  they 
had  a  developed  faith  and  were  baptized  under 
the  imperative  of  direct  providential  intervention, 
and  it  ought  not  to  be  so  administered  ordinarily. 
He  proceeds,  "According  to  the  circumstances 
and  disposition,  and  even  age  of  each  individual, 
the  delay  of  baptism  is  preferable;  principally, 
however,  in  the  case  of  little  children  (parvulos). 
For  why  is  it  necessary — if  (baptism  itself)  is  not 
so  necessary — that  the  sponsors  likewise  should 
be  thrust  into  danger  ?  Who  both  themselves,  by 
reason  of  mortality,  may  fail  to  fulfill  their  prom- 
ises, and  may  be  disappointed  by  the  development 
of  an  evil  disposition  in  those  for  whom  they 
stand.  The  Lord  does  indeed  say,  'Forbid  them 
not  to  come  unto  me.'  Let  them  come,  then, 
while  they  are  growing  up;  let  them  come  while 
they  are  learning,  while  they  are  learning  whither 
to  come;  let  them  become  Christians  when  they 
have  become  able  to  know  Christ.  Why  does  the 
innocent  period  of  life  hasten  to  the  remission  of 
sins?  .  .  .  Let  them  know  how  to  ask  for 
salvation  that  you  may  seem  (at  least)  to  have 
given  to  him  that  asketh." 

In  this  passage  we  undoubtedly  come  upon  the 
baptism  of  children  who  are  too  young  to  exer- 
cise repentance  and  faith.     It  is  evidently  not 


62  Infant-Baptism. 

common  and  makes  the  impression  of  being  at  its 
beginning. 

From  this  document  we  see  clearly  that  as 
far  as  history  can  speak  on  the  subject  in- 
fant baptism  began  in  North  Africa,  at  Car- 
thage, shortly  before  the  close  of  the  second 
century.  Tertullian,  the  greatest  scholar  and 
writer  of  the  time,  opposes  the  innovation,  be- 
cause the  children  are  in  the  "innocent  period  of 
life,"  when  baptism,  the  ordinary  means  of  re- 
mission, is  not  needed.  Whether  it  existed  here 
only  or  was  also  beginning  elsewhere  we  cannot 
say.  Belief  in  the  saving  efficacy  of  baptism 
is  beginning  to  show  one  of  its  effects;  it  is 
leading  some  to  postpone  baptism  to  the  end 
of  life  while  they  continue  in  sin,  and  induc- 
ing others  to  bring  their  helpless  babes  to 
baptism  in  the  hope  of  regenerating  the  child  in 
its  unconscious  infancy.  Christian  parents  are 
beginning  to  believe  that  babes  who  die  unbap- 
tized  are  lost.  And  it  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  infant-baptism  was  so  thoroughly  in  accord 
with  the  other  sacramental  corruptions  which 
were  creeping  into  the  churches  at  this  time  that 
Tertullian  was  the  only  man,  so  far  as  we  know, 
who  protested  against  the  introduction  of  infant- 
baptism.  That  it  was  an  innovation  at  this  time 
is  shown  by  his  opposition  at  Carthage  and  the 
silence  of  his  two  great  contemporaries  at  Alex- 
andria and  Lyons.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to 
believe  that  he  was  alone  in  his  opposition.  Had 
it  been  an  apostolic  tradition  it  is  inconceivable 
that  Tertullian  would  have  opposed  it. 


CHAPTER  VI, 


INFANT-BAPTISM  SLOWLY  GAINS 
GROUND. 


The  next  writer  to  mention  baptism  was  Hip- 
polytus.  He  lived  at  Rome,  but  was  an  opponent 
of  the  bishop  of  Rome  and  himself  probably  an 
opposing  bishop.  He  finally  suffered  martyrdom 
in  235  A.D.  In  a  sermon  on  "The  Holy  The- 
ophany,"  or  baptism  of  Jesus,  he  delivers  a  won- 
derful panegyric  on  the  dignity  and  glory  of  bap- 
tism, and  its  power  to  remove  sin.  But  in  his 
thought  it  is  received  voluntarily  and  after  re- 
pentance and  faith.  In  his  dramatic  style  he 
makes  John  say  to  Jesus :  "I  cannot  baptize  those 
who  come  to  me  unless  they  first  confess  fully 
their  sins.  Be  it  so  then  that  I  baptize  thee  what 
hast  thou  to  confess?  Thou  art  the  remover  of 
sins,  and  wilt  thou  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
of  repentance  ?"  (Ref.  of  Her.  4.)  Lest  some  one 
should  say  that  he  refers  to  John's  baptism  only, 
which  was  confessedly  a  "baptism  of  repentance," 
I  quote  from  10,  where  he  is  dealing  with  bap- 
tism as  it  was  regarded  in  his  day:  "He  who 
comes  down  in  faith  to  the  laver  of  regeneration, 
and  renounces  the  devil,  and  joins  himself  to 
Christ;  who  denies  the  enemy,  and  makes  the 
confession  that  Christ  is  God;  who  puts  off  the 

(63) 


64  Infant-Baptism. 

bondage,  and  puts  on  the  adoption, — he  comes  up 
from  the  baptism  brilliant  as  the  sun,  flashing 
forth  the  beams  of  righteousness."  If  this  great 
scholar  and  author  who  lived  at  Rome,  the  heart 
of  Western  Christendom,  knew  anything  about 
infant-baptism  his  writings  do  not  indicate  it, 
but  rather  the  direct  contrary. 

We  return  now  at  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tury to  Carthage  and  find  infant-baptism  suffi- 
ciently established  in  this  section  of  North  Africa 
to  have  the  support  of  a  large  synod  of  bishops 
held  at  Carthage  in  the  year  252.  Many  questions 
have  been  raised  in  the  course  of  the  centuries 
by  this  unevangelical  innovation  and  this  synod 
in  252  dealt  with  the  first  one  to  arise.  One 
Fidus,  a  bishop  of  that  region,  was  in  doubt  as 
to  whether  baptism  should  be  administered  im- 
mediately after  the  birth  of  the  child  or  be  post- 
poned to  the  eighth  day,  after  the  manner  of  cir- 
cumcision. In  his  perplexity  he  writes  Cyprian, 
the  great  bishop  of  Carthage,  for  advice.  Cyprian 
would  not  take  the  responsibility  of  deciding  so 
new  and  weighty  a  question  himself,  and,  there- 
fore, laid  it  before  a  synod  of  North  African 
bishops  of  whom  sixty  were  present.  They  de- 
cided unanimously  against  postponement.  The 
reasons  for  this  decision  as  stated  by  Cyprian 
were  as  follows :  "The  mercy  and  grace  of  God 
are  not  to  be  refused  to  any  one  born  of  man," 
even  infants  a  day  old ;  "God,  as  he  does  not  ac- 
cept the  person,  so  does  not  accept  the  age ;"  the 
baptizer  ought  not  to  feel  repulsion  at  kissing  a 


Infant-Baptism  Gains  Ground.  65 

baby  just  born  as  Fidus  declared  he  did;  (the 
administrator  then  kissed  the  person  baptized) ; 
baptism  does  not  succeed  to  circumcision,  "which 
figure  ceased  when  by  and  by  the  truth  came,  and 
spiritual  circumcision  was  given  to  us." 

This  is  the  first  official  approval  of  infant-bap- 
tism in  Christian  history.  It  came  in  the  year 
252.  Can  any  reasonable  man  believe  that  Fidus 
would  not  have  known  whether  to  postpone  bap- 
tism till  the  eighth  day  and  that  Cyprian  would 
have  called  a  synod  of  all  the  neighboring  bishops 
to  decide  the  matter  if  infant-baptism  had  been 
instituted  by  Christ,  had  been  practiced  by  the 
apostles  and  the  Christian  church  for  over  two 
hundred  years  ?  Such  a  supposition  puts  a  strain 
on  Christian  credulity  which  even  the  advocates 
of  infant-baptism  will  find  it  difficult  to  bear. 

In  this  chapter  we  will  consider  but  one  more 
writer,  Origen  of  Alexandria.  He  was  born  of 
Christian  parents  about  185  and  died  at  Csesarea 
in  254.  He  was  a  great  scholar  and  teacher,  and 
for  a  time  he  was  head  of  the  catechetical  school 
at  Alexandria.  Many  of  his  works,  which  were 
written  in  Greek,  have  come  down  to  us  only  in 
the  Latin  translations  made  by  Jerome  and  Ru- 
finus  a  century  after  the  author's  death.  In  these 
Latin  translations  there  are  several  striking  ref- 
erences to  infant-baptism,  while  a  few  passages 
in  his  extant  Greek  works  seem  to  indicate  a 
knowledge  of  the  practice,  though  it  is  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned  in  any  extant  Greek  text. 
These  phenomena  have  led  some  scholars  to  sus- 


QQ  Infant-Baptism. 

pect  that  the  Latin  text  has  been  corrupted  by 
interpolation.  This  may  be  the  case,  but  infant- 
baptism,  as  we  have  seen,  was  practiced  at  Car- 
thage before  his  death,  and  may  have  been  known 
to  him.  The  manner  in  which  the  subject  is  treated 
indicates  that  it  was  an  innovation  and  was  caus- 
ing no  end  of  discussion  and  trouble.  In  a 
homily  on  Luke  14,  he  says:  "I  will  mention 
a  thing  that  causes  frequent  inquiries  among  the 
brethren.  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  Of  what  sins  ?  Or  when  have  they 
sinned?  Or  how  can  any  reason  of  the  laver  in 
their  case  hold  good,  but  according  to  that  sense 
that  we  mentioned  even  now:  none  is  free  from 
pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  of  the  length  of 
one  day  upon  the  earth?  And  it  is  for  that  rea- 
son because  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the  pol- 
lution of  our  sin  is  taken  away."  This  quotation, 
if  genuine  in  Origen's  writings,  reveals  the  fact  of 
the  practice  and  the  reason  assigned  for  the  same. 
However,  the  passage  upon  which  pedobaptists 
lay  most  stress  is  in  his  commentary  on  Romans, 
Lib.  V,  chapter  9,  where  he  says:  "For  this 
(original  sin)  also  it  was,  that  the  church  had 
from  the  apostles  a  tradition  to  give  baptism  even 
unto  infants."  This  is  the  first  assertion  in 
Christian  literature  of  apostolic  authority  for  in- 
fant-baptism. Naturally,  pedobaptists  have  em- 
phasized its  significance  and  importance.  But  it 
should  be  remembered  that  Origen,  great  scholar 
though  he  was,  made  serious  blunders  about  other 
matters,  and  was  certainly  not  infallible  as  to  in- 


Infant-Baptism  Gains  Ground.  67 

fant-baptism ;  the  reasons  which  he  assigns  for 
the  practice  would  hardly  be  accepted  as  correct 
by  evangelical  Protestants.  If,  then,  he  were 
wrong  as  to  the  reasons  for  baptism  may  he  not 
have  been  wrong  as  to  its  origin.  Besides  he 
himself  cites  no  Scripture  in  its  support  as  he 
certainly  would  have  done  had  he  known  any. 
The  most  that  he  dared  to  assert  in  his  conscien- 
tious efforts  to  sustain  a  growing  ecclesiastical 
custom,  was  apostolic  tradition.  What  corrup- 
tions have  crept  into  the  church  through  tradi- 
tions!    Infant-baptism  is  confessedly  one. 

As  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  pages  in- 
fant-baptism was  practiced  with  ecclesiastical 
recognition  at  Carthage  as  early  as  250  A.D. 
Moreover,  Origen,  at  Alexandria,  if  we  can  trust 
the  Latin  translation  of  his  works,  knew  of  the 
practice  and  believed  that  it  had  been  handed 
down  by  tradition  from  the  apostles,  though  he 
made  no  claim  that  it  was  scriptural.  But  it  must 
not  be  concluded  from  these  facts  that  it  was  prac- 
ticed throughout  the  entire  Christian  world  at  that 
time,  or  was  the  general  custom  even  at  Carthage. 
Even  here  it  was  still  probably  exceptional,  ad- 
ministered only  in  cases  of  dangerous  illness  or 
for  some  other  special  reason.  It  made  progress 
very  slowly  and  is  not  found  in  other  lands  until 
far  down  into  the  fourth  century.  Indeed,  it 
may  be  called  Africa's  distinctive  contribution  to 
Christian  history. 

The  brief  compass  of  this  work  will  not  per- 
mit more  than  a  few  quotations  illustrating  the 


58  Infant-Baptism. 

growth  of  the  practice  from  this  point  onward  to 
its  complete  triumph.  These  will,  however,  be 
sufficient  to  show  the  general  progress  up  to  the 
Reformation. 

The  next  book  to  be  noticed  is  Apostolic  Con- 
stitutions. It  serves  as  a  manual  of  instruction  in 
church  order  intended  for  the  instruction  of  clergy 
and  laity.  The  author  or  authors  are  unknown 
and  the  date  and  place  of  composition  are  like- 
wise uncertain.  It  is  generally  agreed,  however, 
that  it  could  not  have  been  written  before  250 
A.D.,  and  many  scholars  believe  it  to  have  been 
compiled  many  years  later.  Baptism  is  treated 
extensively  and  often,  and  always  with  the  clear 
implication  that  only  believers  are  to  be  baptized. 
Repentance,  faith  and  instruction  are  uniformly 
required.  In  Book  III,  chapter  XVII  we  read: 
"Let  him  that  is  to  be  baptized  be  free  from 
all  iniquity ;  one  that  has  left  off  to  work  sin,  the 
friend  of  God,  the  enemy  of  the  devil,  the  heir 
of  God  the  Father,  the  fellow-heir  of  his  Son; 
one  that  has  renounced  Satan,  and  the  demons, 
and  Satan's  deceits ;  chaste,"  etc. 

The  above  quotation  fairly  represents  the  gen- 
eral tenor  of  the  entire  work  as  can  be  seen  in 
Book  II,  chapter  VII,  and  Book  VII,  chapters 
XXI  and  XXXIX  and  the  following  chapters, 
where  there  is  extended  instructions  as  to  the 
preparation  of  the  candidate  for  baptism  and  also 
the  ritual  to  be  used  in  its  administration.  The 
ritual  is  for  believers  only.  But  in  Book  VI, 
chapter  XV,  there  is  an  argument  against  the 


Infant-Baptism  Gains  Ground.  69 

postponement  of  baptism  till  just  before  death, 
as  was  frequently  done,  and  the  chapter  closes 
with  these  two  sentences:  "Do  you  also  baptize 
your  infants,  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  For,  says  he,  'Suf- 
fer the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  for- 
bid them  not  !* "  These  two  sentences,  if  they 
are  genuine,  constitute  the  earliest  injunction  to 
parents  to  have  their  infants  baptized  to  be  found 
in  Christian  literature.  But  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  they  contain  the  only  reference  to  infant- 
baptism  in  the  entire  work  and  flatly  contradict 
all  its  other  teachings  concerning  baptism,  it 
seems  very  probable  that  they  are  a  later  inter- 
polation. But  granting  that  they  are  genuine, 
they  bring  the  first  ecclesiastical  recommendation 
of  infant-baptism  down  to  a  date  subsequent  to 
250  A.D.,  more  than  200  years  after  the  death 
of  Jesus. 

In  a  curious  collection  of  literature  going  un- 
der the  name  of  Clement  and  coming  probably 
from  the  third  century  there  are  many  references 
to  baptism.  Infant-baptism  is  nowhere  men- 
tioned or  implied,  but  repentance  and  faith  are 
everywhere  presupposed. 

This  brief  survey  has  touched  on  all  the  liter- 
ature of  the  subject  in  the  third  century.  We 
pass  now  to  the  fourth.  It  was  replete  with  great 
men  and  consequently  is  rich  in  literature.  Dur- 
ing the  first  half  of  the  century  the  great  Arian 
controversy  turned  men's  minds  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  person  of  Christ.     Baptism  is  mentioned 


70  Infant-Baptism. 

only  occasionally  and  incidentally,  but  in  these 
incidental  references  there  is  no  trace  of  infant- 
baptism.  Unfortunately  we  have  no  literature 
from  Carthage  where  we  know  infant-baptism 
was  practiced,  and  the  literature  we  have  does  not 
reveal  its  existence  anywhere  else.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  still  indicates  that  believers  only  were  bap- 
tized. Some  of  the  more  important  of  these 
writers  will  now  be  examined. 

Cyril,  the  great  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (d.  386), 
left  behind  him  twenty-three  lectures  delivered 
to  catechumens  or  those  who  were  preparing  for 
baptism.  They  constitute  a  body  of  instruction 
with  which  catechumens  were  expected  to  be 
familiar  before  they  received  baptism.  In  lec- 
tures nineteen  and  twenty  he  treats  baptism,  and 
there  is  not  a  hint  that  there  is  such  a  thing  on 
the  earth  as  infant-baptism.  On  the  contrary, 
repentance  and  faith  are  required.  The  ritual  of 
baptism,  used  at  Jerusalem,  is  given  in  detail.  It 
requires  the  candidate,  standing  in  the  baptistry, 
to  face  the  west  and  renounce  Satan  and  all  his 
works,  and  then  face  the  east  and  repeat  the 
creed,  etc.    These  acts  are  impossible  for  infants. 

Neither  Eusebius,  the  first  great  Christian  his- 
torian (d.  340),  nor  Basil  the  Great  (d.  379), 
nor  his  brother,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (d.  395), 
mentions  infant-baptism.  Basil's  view  of  bap- 
tism may  be  seen  from  the  following  quotation 
from  his  work  "On  the  Spirit,"  chapter  12: 
"Faith  and  baptism  are  two  kindred  and  insep- 
arable   ways    of    salvation :    faith    is    perfected 


Infant-Baptism  Gains  Ground.  71 

through  baptism,  baptism  is  established  through 
faith,  and  both  are  completed  by  the  same  names. 
For  as  we  believe  in  the  Father  and  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  so  were  we  also  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost :  first  comes  the  confession,  introduc- 
ing us  to  salvation,  and  baptism  follows,  setting 
the  seal  on  our  assent."  Nothing  could  be  more 
clearly  opposed  to  infant-baptism. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  in  his  work  on  "The  Great 
Catechism,"  a  manual  of  instructions  for  those 
who  prepare  catechumens  for  baptism,  is  almost 
as  clear  and  explicit.  In  speaking  of  the  removal 
of  sin  he  says  (chapter  XXV)  :  "Two  things 
concurring  to  this  removal  of  sin — the  penitence 
of  the  transgressor  and  his  imitation  of  the  death 
(in  his  immersion).  By  these  two  things  the  man 
is  in  a  measure  freed  from  his  congenital  ten- 
dency to  evil;  by  his  penitence  he  advances  to 
a  hatred  of  and  averseness  from  sin,  and  by  his 
death  (baptism)  he  works  out  the  suppression 
of  evil."  Again,  in  chapter  XXXIX,  he  makes 
this  remarkable  statement  which  absolutely  pre- 
cludes the  possibility  of  infant-baptism:  "While 
all  things  else  that  are  born  are  subject  to  the 
impulse  of  those  that  beget  them,  the  spiritual 
birth  is  dependent  on  the  power  of  him  who  is 
being  born ;"  that  is,  the  free  choice  of  the  human 
will  is  a  necessary  condition  of  spiritual  birth. 
Since  baptism  was  regarded  as  the  indispensable 
means  of  rebirth,  baptism  must  have  been  admin- 
istered on  the  voluntary  action  of  a  believer. 


12  Infant-Baptism. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  was  one  of  the  great  pul- 
pit orators  of  the  fourth  century,  a  theologian 
and  defender  of  orthodoxy.  Because  of  the 
splendor  of  his  gifts  he  was  chosen  in  379  to  be 
bishop  or  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  next  to 
Rome  the  most  important  see  in  Christendom. 
In  this  pulpit  he  preached  in  381  a  sermon  on 
"Holy  Baptism."  The  general  tenor  of  the  ser- 
mon shows  conclusively  that  the  usual  practice 
in  Constantinople  was  still  faith-baptism.  He  ad- 
dresses adults  concerning  their  own  baptism, 
pleads  with  them  not  to  postpone  baptism  to  the 
end  of  life,  but  "let  some  time  intervene  between 
the  grave  and  death,  that  not  only  the  account  of 
sins  be  wiped  out,  but  something  better  be  written 
in  its  place"  (XH).  While  the  whole  sermon 
is  addressed  to  adults,  urging  them,  against  their 
reluctance  and  excuses,  to  be  baptized,  he  also 
mentions  infant-baptism.  He  is  the  first  writer 
in  the  Eastern  or  Greek  church,  indeed  the  first 
outside  of  Africa,  to  touch  the  subject  or  indi- 
cate in  any  way  any  acquaintance  with  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  practice.  Like  Tertullian,  the  first 
to  mention  infant-baptism  in  Africa,  Gregory  the 
first  to  mention  it  outside  of  Africa,  is  opposed 
to  it  except  in  cases  of  dangerous  illness.  He 
represents  the  people  as  uncertain  as  to  their  duty 
in  the  matter,  positive  evidence  that  it  was  an  in- 
novation and  by  no  means  established  among 
them.  He  says  they  ask:  "What  have  you  to 
say  about  those  who  are  still  children,  and  con- 
scious neither  of  the  loss  nor  of  the  grace  ?    Are 


Infant-Baptism  Gains  Ground.  73 

we  to  baptize  them,  too  ?"  His  answer  is :  "Cer- 
tainly, if  any  danger  presses.  For  it  is  better 
that  they  be  unconsciously  sanctified  than  that 
they  should  depart  unsealed  and  uninitiated. 
But  in  respect  of  others  I  give  my  advice  to  wait 
till  the  end  of  the  third  year,  or  a  little  more  or 
less,  when  they  may  be  able  to  listen  and  to  an- 
swer something  about  the  sacrament:  that  even 
though  they  do  not  perfectly  understand  it,  yet 
at  any  rate  they  may  know  the  outlines ;  and  then 
to  sanctify  them  in  soul  and  body  with  the  great 
sacrament  of  our  consecration.  For  this  is  how 
the  matter  stands;  at  that  time  they  begin  to  be 
responsible  for  their  lives,  when  reason  is  ma- 
tured and  they  learn  the  mystery  of  life" 
(XXVIII).  From  this  excerpt  it  is  evident  that 
at  Constantinople  in  381  A.D.  the  facts  concern- 
ing infant-baptism  were  as  follows :  ( i )  Infant- 
baptism  was  not  generally  practiced ;  (2)  the  peo- 
ple were  in  doubt  as  to  its  value,  and  were  op- 
posed to  it;  (3)  the  great  bishop  recommended 
it  only  in  cases  of  dangerous  illness;  (4)  in  the 
case  of  healthy  children  he  advised  its  postpone- 
ment until  the  children  ''begin  to  be  responsible 
for  their  lives." 

The  next  writer  to  be  noticed  is  John  Chryso- 
stom,  "the  golden-mouthed."  He  became  bishop 
of  Constantinople  in  396  and  died  in  407.  He  is 
of  course  acquainted  with  infant-baptism,  but  his 
homilies  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  it  is  still  the 
exception.     He  does  not  oppose  it,  neither  does 


74  Infant-Baptism. 

he  recommend  it.    It  is  to  him  simply  an  allow- 
able alternative  time  for  baptism. 

Returning  now  to  the  Western  or  Latin  church, 
we  find  no  certain  evidence  of  the  practice  of  in- 
fant-baptism outside  of  Africa  on  the  north  side 
of  the  Mediterranean  before  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century.  Ambrose,  the  great  bishop  of  Milan 
(d.  397),  in  his  treatment  of  baptism  in  his  work 
"On  the  Mysteries,"  chapters  I-VII,  does  not  in- 
timate that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  infant-bap- 
tism, but  rather  treats  the  whole  subject  as  if  the 
only  persons  to  be  baptized  were  instructed  be- 
lievers. In  his  description  of  the  ceremonial  he 
says  that  candidates  renounce  the  devil  and  his 
works,  accept  Christ,  are  dipped  in  water,  put  on 
white  clothing,  etc.  However,  there  are  two  pas- 
sages which  indicate  that  he  may  have  been  ac- 
quainted with  the  practice.  Jerome  does  not  treat 
the  subject  of  baptism. 


CHAPTER  VII 


INFANT-BAPTISM  TRIUMPHANT 

THROUGH  BAPTISMAL 

REGENERATION. 


We  come  now  to  the  great  character  whose 
genius  did  so  much  to  fix  the  customs  and  work 
out  the  theological  buttresses  of  the  Catholic 
church,  Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo  (354-430). 
Again  it  is  North  Africa  where  progress  is  made 
in  the  history  of  infant-baptism.  We  have  now 
reached  the  period  when  the  doctrine  of  infant- 
baptism  is  settled  for  the  Catholic  church  in  an 
effort  to  justify  it  against  its  opponents  and  those 
who  doubted.  Augustine  is  a  saint  in  the  Roman 
church,  and  he  richly  deserves  the  distinction  if 
one  can  earn  it  by  service,  for  it  was  he  who  first 
gave  a  consistent  theological  basis  for  many  of 
the  distinctive  doctrines  of  that  church,  among 
them  infant-baptism.  His  noble  mother,  Monnica, 
did  not  have  him  baptized  as  an  infant,  desiring 
to  wait  till  the  danger  of  youthful  pollutions  was 
in  some  measure  past.  When  a  boy  he  fell  quite 
ill  and  requested  baptism,  but  she  refused  it  even 
under  those  distressing  circumstances  and  he  was 
not  baptized  till  his  conversion  in  mature  life. 

In  the  course  of  his  life  he  was  involved  in 
many  controversies  in  which  he  wrought  out  the 

(76) 


76  Infant-Baptism. 

theological  basis  of  the  Catholic  church.  One  of 
these  was  with  Pelagius,  a  British  monk,  over  the 
nature  of  sin  and  grace  and  salvation.  In  this 
controversy  infant-baptism  came  under  serious 
discussion  for  the  first  time  in  history  so  far  as 
our  literary  sources  enable  us  to  follow  the  his- 
tory. The  Pelagians  believing  that  infants  were 
innocent,  sinless,  could  find  no  logical  and  satis- 
factory reason  for  baptizing  them.  Apparently 
they  had  at  first  denied  the  necessity  and  doubted 
the  expendiency  of  the  practice;  later  they  ad- 
mitted its  importance,  but  could  never  render  an 
effective  reason  for  the  practice  on  the  basis  of 
their  view  of  the  innocence  of  infants. 

Augustine  believed  profoundly  that  human 
nature  was  corrupt  and  sinful  from  birth ;  he  be- 
lieved with  equal  firmness  that  baptism  was  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  the  regeneration  and  salva- 
tion of  every  sinner.  Hence,  infants  as  well  as 
adults  must  be  baptized  or  they  were  condemned 
to  an  eternal  hell  if  they  died  unbaptized.  Later 
the  Catholic  church  in  mitigation  of  this  horrible 
doctrine  invented  the  limbo  of  infants,  where  un- 
baptized infants  dying  in  infancy  are  restrained 
forever  from  the  face  of  God  but  are  not  actually 
subjected  to  the  pains  of  hell.  Augustine  knew 
of  the  idea  but  spurned  it.  To  him  the  unbap- 
tized infant  dying  in  infancy  was  consigned  to 
the  torments  of  an  awful  and  eternal  hell,  and  it 
was  on  this  basis  that  he  worked  out  his  justifica- 
tion of  infant-baptism.  The  danger  of  death  in 
infancy,  still  great  in  our  day  notwithstanding 


Through  Baptismal  Regeneration.  'J'J 

the  wonderful  progress  made  in  recent  years  in 
preventive  medicine,  was  many  times  greater 
then.  In  view  of  this  uncertainty  it  is  not  strange 
that  Augustine,  holding  such  views  as  he  did 
concerning  the  religious  status  of  the  child, 
should  have  justified  and  also  advocated  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.  It  is  worthy  of  serious  atten- 
tion that  he  is  the  first  Christian,  so  far  as  the 
records  go,  who  advocated  its  administration. 
Others  had  mentioned  it,  some  had  opposed  it, 
some  had  tolerated  or  even  justified  it,  but  no- 
body so  far  as  we  know  had  advocated  it.  It 
had  unquestionably  risen,  not  from  the  advocacy 
of  the  clergy  but  instigated  by  the  fears  of  the 
parents. 

As  belief  in  the  power  of  baptism  to  remove 
the  guilt  and  stain  of  all  previous  sins  grad- 
ually established  itself,  it  exercised  two 
natural  but  contrary  tendencies  as  to  the  time 
at  which  baptism  should  be  administered. 
The  earliest  and  at  first  the  most  pro- 
nounced tendency  was  to  postpone  baptism 
till  the  end  of  life.  The  Catholic  church  had  not 
as  yet  worked  out  its  elaborate  system  of  cere- 
monies for  the  removal  of  sins  committed  after 
baptism,  and  so  it  was  thought  that  baptism  at 
the  end  of  life  was  the  only  certain  way  which  the 
church  had  for  the  removal  of  sin.  Moreover, 
if  one  was  so  inclined  he  might  indulge  his  pro- 
pensities for  sin  throughout  life  and  yet  rest  as- 
sured that  all  would  be  well  in  the  end  if  only  he 
postponed  baptism  until  then.    Against  this  ten- 


78  Infant-Baptism. 

dency  the  fathers  of  the  third  and  following  cen- 
turies protested  continually,  urging  baptism  on  all 
at  conversion  or  at  the  end  of  the  usual  period  of 
catechetical  instruction. 

The  other  tendency  due  to  the  rise  of  belief 
in  baptismal  regeneration  was  to  push  baptism 
back  to  the  very  beginning  of  life,  so  as  to  escape 
the  awful  danger  of  seeing  a  child  die  unbaptized 
and  so  be  eternally  lost.  The  former  tendency 
was  the  deliberate  choice  of  adults  for  themselves, 
the  latter  was  born  of  the  fears  of  parents  for 
their  unconscious  infants.  Both  tendencies  are 
the  offspring  of  the  same  perversion  of  the  sig- 
nificance of  baptism  and  both  sprang  from  the 
people  rather  than  the  clergy.  The  clergy,  so  far 
as  known,  never  advocated  the  postponement  of 
baptism  to  the  end  of  life;  on  the  contrary,  they 
vigorously  and  continuously  opposed  the  ten- 
dency; and  yet  for  a  long  while  it  threatened  to 
establish  itself  as  the  usual  practice.  Infant- 
baptism,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  pages, 
was  opposed  by  some  of  the  clergy  and  some  of 
the  laity  and  doubted  by  many,  but  the  danger 
of  death  constituted  for  parents  of  sickly  children 
who  believed  that  baptism  was  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, an  overwhelming  argument. 

Augustine,  as  we  have  seen,  becomes  the  first 
active  advocate  of  infant-baptism.  And  yet  even 
he  reveals  the  fact  that  faith-baptism  had  been 
the  earlier  practice  and  that  faith  was  still  felt 
to  be  required.  In  arguing  that  infants  are  sin- 
ners, he  cites  the  fact  that  the  ritual  used  in 


Through  Baptismal  Regeneration.  79 

infant-baptism  is  the  same  as  that  used  in  admin- 
istering faith-baptism,  and  that  the  infant 
(through  its  parents)  is  exorcised,  confesses  its 
sins,  renounces  the  devil  and  avows  its  faith.  But 
he  goes  further  and  squarely  recognizes  the  great 
fundamental  evangelical  truth  that  faith  is  essen- 
tial to  baptism  and  salvation,  frequently  assert- 
ing that  baptized  infants  must  be  counted  in  the 
number  of  believers  and  are  actually  so  counted 
by  the  church  (On  Forgiveness  of  Sins  and  Bap- 
tism, Book  I,  38  and  often).  Of  course,  when 
he  begins  to  define  and  describe  this  infant  faith 
he  is  compelled  to  juggle  with  words.  He  admits 
that  the  child  was  unconscious  of  repentance  and 
the  various  acts  ascribed  to  him  by  the  sponsors, 
but  he  asserts  nevertheless  that  they  are  unexperi- 
enced realities  in  the  heart  of  the  child.  A  few 
quotations  will  suffice  to  lay  before  the  reader 
his  views,  in  so  far  as  such  confused  opinions  can 
be  set  forth.  Commenting  on  the  words:  "He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  he 
says :  "Now  the  mystery  of  this  believing  in  the 
case  of  infants  is  completely  effected  by  the  re- 
sponses of  the  sureties  by  whom  they  are  taken  to 
baptism"  (On  the  Soul,  etc..  Book  H,  chapter 
17).  "By  the  answer  of  those  through  whose 
agency  they  are  born  again,  the  Spirit  of  right- 
eousness transfers  to  them  that  faith  which,  of 
their  own  will,  they  could  not  yet  have"  (On 
Forgiveness,  etc.,  Book  HI,  chapter  2).  "In  the 
case  of  infants,  being  baptized  is  to  believe,  and 
not  being  baptized  is  not  to  believe"  (lb.  Book 


80  Infant-Baptism. 

I,  chapter  40).  *They  belong  among  those  who 
have  believed;  for  this  is  obtained  for  them  by 
virtue  of  the  sacrament  and  the  answer  of  the 
sponsors.  .  .  .  Such  as  are  not  baptized  are 
reckoned  among  those  who  have  not  believed" 
(lb.  Book  I,  chapter  62).  "They  are  rightly 
called  believers,  because  they  in  a  certain  sense 
profess  faith  by  the  words  of  their  parents  .  .  . 
renounce  the  world  by  the  profession  again  of 
the  same  parents.  The  whole  of  this  is  done  in 
hope,  in  the  strength  of  the  sacrament  and  the 
divine  grace  which  the  Lord  has  bestowed  upon 
the  church.  But  who  knows  not  that  the  baptized 
infant  fails  to  be  benefited  from  what  he  receives 
as  a  little  child,  if  on  coming  to  years  of  reason 
he  fails  to  believe  and  to  abstain  from  unlawful 
desires?"  (lb.  Book  I,  chapter  25).  Quotations 
to  the  same  effect  could  be  multiplied  indefinitely, 
but  one  more  must  suffice.  In  a  letter  written 
in  408,  in  reply  to  a  request  from  Boniface, 
bishop  of  Rome,  for  help  in  the  solution  of  some 
of  the  more  serious  problems  and  doubts  that  had 
arisen  in  connection  with  the  growing  practice  of 
infant-baptism,  he  says:  "Believing  is  nothing 
else  than  having  faith ;  and  accordingly,  when  on 
behalf  of  an  infant  as  yet  incapable  of  exercising 
faith,  the  answer  is  given  that  he  believes,  this 
answer  means  that  he  has  faith  because  of  the 
sacrament  of  faith,  and  in  like  manner  the  an- 
swer is  made  that  he  turns  to  God  because  of  the 
sacrament  of  conversion.  .  .  .  An  infant,  al- 
though he  is  not  yet  a  believer  in  the  sense  of 


Through  Baptismal  Regeneration.  gl 

having  that  faith  which  includes  the  consenting 
will  of  those  who  exercise  it,  nevertheless  be- 
comes a  believer  through  the  sacrament  of  that 
faith.  For  as  it  is  answered  that  he  believes,  so 
also  he  is  called  a  believer,  not  because  he  assents 
to  the  truth  by  an  act  of  his  own  judgment,  but 
because  he  receives  the  sacrament  of  that  truth" 
(Letter  XCVIII). 

Augustine  frequently  acknowledges  the  exist- 
ence of  serious  abuses  in  the  practice  and  reveals 
the  existence  of  opponents.  The  only  scriptural 
authority  which  he  can  find  is  the  assertion  that 
baptism  succeeds  circumcision,  a  conception  which 
had  been  rejected  by  his  great  high-church  fore- 
runner, Cyprian.  He  can  point  to  no  New  Tes- 
tament command  or  example,  and  can  find  no 
historical  support  earlier  than  Cyprian,  though  he 
asserts  that  it  had  come  down  by  tradition  from 
the  apostles.  But  so  powerful  was  his  influence 
that  the  practice  was  never  again  seriously  ques- 
tioned in  the  Catholic  church,  and  now  rapidly 
became  the  accepted  theory  and  practice  of  that 
body.  Boniface,  bishop  of  Rome,  was  the  last 
prominent  churchman  to  question  it.  For  the 
future  there  were  many  questions  connected  with 
the  practice  to  be  settled,  but  the  practice  itself 
is  unchallenged  within  the  pale  of  the  Catholic 
church.  To  oppose  it  was  to  put  oneself  outside 
that  church  and  endanger  life  itself. 

The  subsidiary  questions  arising  in  the  course 
of  the  centuries  were  usually  settled  in  synods  of 
the  clergy.     These  meetings  began   to  be  held 


^  Infant-Baptism. 

about  150  A.D.  Difficulties  relating  to  baptism 
are  often  treated  but  infant-baptism  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  acts  of  any  synod  before  that  of 
Carthage  in  252  A.D.,  already  mentioned  in  treat- 
ing Cyprian.  Constant  references  in  the  acts  of 
later  synods  to  the  baptism  of  heathens  and  cate- 
chumens show  that  faith-baptism  was  the  rule 
till  well  down  in  the  fifth  century.  From  that 
time  onward  infant-baptism  is  a  subject  of  fre- 
quent consideration.  The  conclusions  show  steady 
advance  in  the  practice  and  its  demands.  These 
will  now  be  noticed. 

A  synod,  held  at  Carthage  in  418  in  which 
some  200  bishops  from  Spain  and  from  all  the 
provinces  of  North  Africa  participated,  anathe- 
matized any  who  said  that  new-born  children  did 
not  need  baptism  (Hefele,  His.  of  the  Councils, 
II,  459).  This  synod  did  not  enjoin  the  baptism 
of  infants  as  a  duty,  but  justified  it  as  a  practice 
on  the  ground  of  child  need.  It  should  be  noted 
that  this,  like  the  former  synod  in  which  infant- 
baptism  was  considered,  was  held  in  Africa. 

The  first  synod  held  outside  of  Africa  which 
dealt  with  infant-baptism  was  held  at  Gerunda, 
in  Spain,  June  8,  517.  Its  position  can  be  seen 
from  the  fourth  and  fifth  canons :  "Catechumens 
are  to  be  baptized  at  Easter  and  Pentecost;  only 
to  the  sick  ones  may  baptism  be  administered  at 
any  time.  When  new-born  children  are  sick,  and 
have  no  appetite  for  the  mother's  milk,  as  is  often 
the  case,  they  should  be  baptized  at  once,  on  the 
same  day"  (Hefele,  IV,  105).    This  is  an  illumi- 


Through  Baptismal  Regeneration.  83 

nating  illustration,  showing  that  infant-baptism 
was  still  the  exception  in  this  part  of  the  world 
and  that  infant  mortality  was  the  great  argument 
for  the  practice. 

In  the  seventh  century  the  clergy  began  the  at- 
tempt to  force  all  society  into  the  Church  through 
the  now  wide-open  door  of  infant-baptism,  and  as 
a  result  came  the  demand  that  all  infants  be  bap- 
tized under  pain  of  punishment  for  neglect  or 
refusal.  The  State  began  to  lend  its  aid  to  the 
Church  in  this  endeavor,  assessing  heavy  fines  on 
the  recalcitrant.  The  first  instance  of  this  demand 
that  has  come  down  to  us  is  that  of  King  Ina 
of  Wessex,  in  England.  A  large  English  synod 
held  in  692  decreed  as  follows:  "A  child  must 
be  baptized  within  thirty  days  after  its  birth  un- 
der penalty  of  thirty  solidi.  Should  it  die  unbap- 
tized  it  is  atoned  for  with  the  entire  property  of 
its  parents"  (Hefele,  III,  349).  Similarly,  a 
council  was  held  at  Paderborn  under  Charlemagne 
in  785  in  which  it  was  determined  (canon  19)  : 
"Every  one  must  have  his  child  baptized  within 
a  year  under  penalty"  (Hefele,  III,  637).  This 
rule  was  doubtless  enforced  by  the  great  Prankish 
king  all  over  his  vast  dominions,  for  he  did  not 
hesitate  to  compel  adult  Saxons  to  be  baptized 
on  their  submission  to  him.  Gradually  it  became 
the  general  practice  of  the  Church  and  of  Chris- 
tian government  to  impose  baptism  on  all  infants, 
and  faith-baptism  almost  ceased  during  two  or 
three  centuries. 


34  Infant-Baptism. 

The  Church  soon  became  conscious  of  some  of 
the  evils  of  infant-baptism;  constantly  lamenting 
its  corruptions,  but  never  once  thinking  of  aban- 
doning the  practice.  This  feature  of  the  history 
is  also  seen  in  the  acts  of  several  synods.  In  a 
great  reform  synod  held  at  Paris  at  the  command 
of  the  emperor  in  829,  it  was  declared  (canon  6)  : 
"Formerly  baptism  was  administered  only  to 
such  as  had  already  been  instructed  in  the  faith. 
Now,  since  all  parents  are  Christian,  it  is  other- 
wise; but  it  is  a  frightful  neglect  if  those  who 
were  baptized  as  children  are  not  later  thoroughly 
instructed."  Again,  in  canon  9,  it  is  said:  "It 
is  very  bad  that  many  who  were  baptized  as  chil- 
dren do  not  later  learn  the  true  meaning  of  bap- 
tism, partly  through  their  own  fault,  partly 
through  the   neglect  of  their  pastors"  (Hefele, 

IV,  59). 

The  baptism  of  all  infants  had  now  become  the 
ideal  of  the  Catholic  church.  If  some  remained 
unbaptized  in  nominally  Christian  lands  it  was 
due  to  an  oversight  or  neglect  of  the  priests.  Par- 
ents were  no  longer  permitted  to  determine 
whether  their  children  should  be  baptized;  both 
Church  and  State  demanded  it.  Religious  free- 
dom was  denied  to  both  infants  and  parents.  In- 
fant-baptism was  now  doing  its  full  and  legiti- 
mate work.  It  crushed  religious  freedom,  in- 
troduced the  unregenerate  into  the  Church, 
obliterated  the  distinction  between  the  Church 
and  the  world,  and  banished  evangelical 
religion    and     faith-baptism     from    the     earth, 


Through  Baptismal  Regeneration.  g5 

except  as  they  could  escape  the  lynx  eyes  of 
the  Church  and  State.  Its  advocates  were 
now  prepared  to  fight  with  fire  and  sword  and 
every  other  cruelty  that  fiendish  ingenuity  could 
invent,  every  effort  to  restore  evangelical  faith 
and  the  faith-baptism  which  the  Lord  com- 
manded. Henceforth  for  centuries  the  advocates 
of  faith-baptism  must  be  prepared  for  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  stake.  Infant-baptism  has  ushered  in 
the  Dark  Ages. 


CHAPTER  VIII, 


THE  REFORMATION— MARTIN 
LUTHER. 


In  the  preceding  chapter  we  followed  the  his- 
tory of  infant-baptism  to  the  point  where  both 
Church  and  State  were  enforcing  it  upon  all  par- 
ents under  penalty.  It  is  not  necessary  to  follow 
the  details  of  its  history  in  the  Catholic  church 
during  the  Middle  Ages.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
it  became  almost  the  sole  kind  of  baptism  prac- 
ticed in  so-called  Christian  lands,  faith-baptisms 
being  very  rare  and  confined  almost  exclusively 
to  the  infrequent  cases  of  the  conversion  of  Jews. 
But  there  remained  some  consciousness  of  its 
evils  and  every  effort  at  reform  and  revival  of 
evangelical  faith  within  the  Catholic  church 
called  forth  protests  against  infant-baptism. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  the  ques- 
tion of  its  abolition  raised  very  early  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  mighty  movement  in  the  interest  of 
evangelical  religion  known  as  the  Reformation. 
All  the  great  reformers  were  compelled  to  face 
the  question  and  take  a  stand,  and  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  this  question  gave  them  more  trouble  than 
any  other  matter  of  internal  policy.  As  early  as 
1 52 1  some  of  Luther's  followers  began  to  express 
doubts  as  to  the  scripturalness  and  practical  re- 

(86) 


Reformation — Martin  Luther.  g7 

suits  of  infant-baptism.  Many  of  them  discon- 
tinued its  administration  without,  however,  at 
once  rebaptizing  those  who  had  been  baptized  in 
infancy. 

Luther  himself  seems  to  have  had  little  or  no 
doubt  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  the  practice.  What- 
ever he  may  have  thought  about  it  from  a  scrip- 
tural standpoint,  practical  considerations  would 
have  led  him  to  support  its  continuance  firmly. 
It  was  a  sacrament  of  the  Church,  deeply 
grounded  in  the  social  life  and  the  religious  faith 
of  the  people;  it  was  the  basis  of  the  union  of 
the  Church  with  the  State  on  whose  support  he 
was  compelled  to  lean  so  hard  in  his  struggle 
with  the  Catholic  church;  its  rejection  would 
have  divided  his  forces  and  compelled  him  to 
rely  on  the  power  of  the  gospel  alone.  In  short, 
its  rejection  would  have  wrecked  his  movement 
by  its  radical  demands.  From  his  viewpoint  its 
retention  was  the  only  means  of  preserving  unity 
and  assuring  success.  Consequently  he  made 
short  work  of  the  Anabaptists  who  were  jeopard- 
izing the  whole  movement  for  reform  by  raising 
this  dangerous  question.  Disdaining  argument, 
he  invoked  the  strong  arm  of  the  State  for  their 
suppression.  Moreover,  his  view  of  the  means 
of  grace  gave  theological  support  to  the  impor- 
tance and  continuance  of  infant-baptism.  His  en- 
tire system  was  a  strange  jumble  of  evangelical 
and  Catholic  elements.  The  center  of  his  theolo- 
gical system  was  justification  by  faith,  which  is 
of  course    the    very    foundation  of  evangelical 


83  Infant-Baptism. 

Christianity;  but  with  the  clear  and  forcible 
enunciation  of  this  principle  he  combined  a  con- 
tradictory view  of  the  means  of  grace.  These 
are,  according  to  him,  the  Word  (that  is  the  gos- 
pel message)  and  the  Sacraments  (baptism  and 
the  Supper.)  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  he 
was  reared  a  Catholic,  breaking  away  from  that 
church  only  in  middle  life  and  never  succeeding 
in  gaining  complete  emancipation.  This  fact  is 
seen  m.ost  clearly  in  his  view  of  baptism  and  the 
Supper  which  is  in  both  cases  very  near  to  that 
of  the  Catholics.  To  him  the  glorified  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  were  as  really  present  in  the  ele- 
ments of  bread  and  wine  as  to  the  Catholic;  he 
differed  only  as  to  the  mode  of  this  presence.  In 
like  manner  he  taught  the  necessity  of  baptism 
as  the  divinely  appointed  means  of  regeneration 
as  firmly  as  the  Catholics  themselves.  He  held 
that  baptism  is  water  with  the  word,  the  bath  of 
regeneration,  and  absolutely  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. This  view  of  the  necessity  and  efiicacy  of 
baptism  was  the  basis  for  infant-baptism  for  him 
as  it  was  for  the  Catholics.  He  strove  to  har- 
monize it  with  his  great  evangelical  principle  of 
justification  by  faith,  but  of  course  without  suc- 
cess. The  two  principles  are  incompatible  and  ir- 
reconcilable. In  his  earlier  years  he  seemed  in- 
clined to  insist  that  unconscious  infants  when  bap- 
tized had  an  unconscious  faith,  that  baptism  sup- 
plied faith,  as  Augustine  had  contended,  or  that 
the  faith  of  the  parents  or  of  the  Church  was  ac- 
cepted in  a  vicarious  way.    And  he  apparently 


Reformation — Martin  Luther,  89 

never  gave  up  the  conviction  that  faith  must  be 
and  is  in  some  sense  actually  present  in  every  bap- 
tized and  saved  person.  But  in  his  later  life  he 
showed  some  inclination  to  give  up  this  juggling 
with  words  and  admit  frankly  that  faith  is  not  nec- 
essary to  salvation,  thus  falling  back  into  the 
blank  opus  operatum  view  of  the  Catholic  church. 
A  few  quotations  from  the  more  important 
Lutheran  documents  will  make  his  views  plain. 
In  the  "Shorter  Catechism"  composed  by  Luther 
in  1529,  the  most  widely  used  means  of  religious 
instruction  for  children,  it  is  said  that  baptism 
"effects  the  remission  of  sins,  frees  us  from  death 
and  the  devil,  and  gives  blessedness  everlasting 
to  those  who  believe  what  the  word  and  the  prom- 
ise of  God  declare."  Faith  of  some  kind  is  im- 
plied in  this  quotation  and  in  all  that  is  said  in 
this  catechism  about  baptism.  In  the  "Greater 
Catechism,"  also  composed  in  1529  and  designed 
for  the  instruction  of  the  preachers,  Luther  says : 
"The  whole  force,  work,  necessity,  fruit  and  end 
of  baptism  is  to  confer  salvation  .  .  .  for 
through  the  Word  it  (the  water)  receives  the 
power  to  become  a  washing  of  regeneration.  .  .  . 
Nothing  works  in  us  but  faith,  but  .  .  .  faith 
must  have  something  to  believe,  that  is,  to  which 
it  can  cling,  on  which  it  can  stand  and  rest.  So 
faith  clings  to  the  water,  and  believes  that  bap- 
tism confers  salvation  and  life,  not  through  the 
water,  but  because  it  embodies  God's  Word  and 
command,  and  because  his  name  is  attached  to  it. 
.     .     .     Faith  alone  makes  the  person  worthy 


90  Infant-Baptism, 

usefully  to  receive  the  wholesome  and  holy  water. 
.  .  .  It  cannot  be  received  unless  we  believe 
it  from  our  hearts.  It  will  avail  us  nothing  with- 
out faith"  (Luther's  Primary  Works,  pp.  I33f). 
Such  views  would  seem  to  render  infant-bap- 
tism utterly  out  of  the  question;  but  not  so. 
Luther  is  equal  to  the  task  of  justifying  infant- 
baptism  on  such  a  basis  as  this.  He  begins  his 
discussion  of  the  subject  with  this  vigorous  lan- 
guage :  "There  arises  now  a  question  with  which 
the  devil  and  his  sects  would  confound  the  world  : 
the  question  of  the  baptism  of  infants  whether 
they  can  have  faith  and  be  properly  baptized." 
He  advises  the  "simple"  to  cast  the  question  aside 
and  leave  it  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  subject.  He  then  argues  (i)  that  infant- 
baptism  must  be  pleasing  to  Christ  who  has  hon- 
ored and  blessed  so  many  that  were  baptized  in 
infancy;  (2)  "that  it  is  not  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance whether  he  who  is  baptized  has  faith 
or  not,  for  this  will  not  make  the  baptism  wrong; 
everything  depends  on  God's  Word  and  com- 
mand;" (3)  "We  bring  the  child  in  the  belief 
and  hope  that  it  has  faith,  and  pray  God  to  give 
it  faith ;  but  we  do  not  baptize  it  on  this  account, 
but  solely  because  God  has  commanded  it.  .  .  . 
It  is  only  foolish  and  presumptuous  persons  who 
argue  and  infer  that,  where  there  is  no  faith,  the 
baptism  cannot  be  right"  (Primary  Works,  p. 
I38ff).  Could  anything  illustrate  the  incom- 
patibility of  infant-baptism  with  the  fundamental 
Lutheran  tenet  of  justification    by    faith    more 


Reformation — Martin  Luther.  91 

clearly  and  forcefully  than  these  quotations,  all 
taken  from  the  "Greater  Catechism"? 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  drawn  up, 
chiefly  by  Melanchthon,  in  1530,  and  presented  by 
the  Lutheran  princes  to  the  emperor  and  Diet 
at  Augsburg  as  the  explanation  and  justification 
of  their  views  and  actions.  It  has  ever  since  been 
regarded  as  the  foundation  statement  of  Luth- 
eran doctrine  and  practice.  The  article  on  bap- 
tism is  brief  and  inconclusive,  since  that  was  not 
one  of  the  subjects  in  dispute  between  Catholics 
and  Lutherans.  It  is  said  that  baptism  "is  nec- 
essary to  salvation,  and  that  by  baptism  the  grace 
of  God  is  offered,  and  that  children  are  to  be  bap- 
tized, who  by  baptism,  being  offered  to  God,  are 
received  into  God's  favor.  They  condemn  the 
Anabaptists  who  allow  not  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren, and  affirm  that  children  are  saved  without 
baptism." 

These  quotations  will  suffice  to  show  how  con- 
fused Luther  was  in  his  arguments  for  infant- 
baptism,  notwithstanding  the  clearness  and  vigor 
with  which  he  insisted  on  its  practice.  He  held 
that  there  was  no  salvation  apart  from  faith,  but 
that  baptism  was  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that 
infants  were  to  be  baptized.  As  to  how  these 
statements  are  to  be  reconciled  he  was  in  the  fog. 
They  are  irreconcilable.  Infant-baptism  is  not 
and  cannot  be  a  faith-baptism.  It  is  a  non-faith, 
involuntary  and  magical  baptism  in  the  usage  of 
Luther  equally  as  much  as  in  that  of  the  Cath- 
olics. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  REFORMATION— ZWINGLI  AND 
CALVIN. 


The  second  great  character  of  the  Reforma- 
tion was  Huldreich  Zwingli,  the  reformer  of  Ger- 
man-speaking Switzerland.  His  views  were 
reached  independently  of  Luther  in  the  course 
of  his  regular  ministrations  as  pastor  of  the  most 
important  church  in  Zurich.  In  general  he  took 
a  more  biblical  position  than  Luther,  and  his  re- 
form was  in  many  respects  far  more  radical  than 
that  of  Luther.  This  was  especially  true  of  his 
views  of  baptism  and  the  Supper.  Much  more  con- 
sistently than  Luther  he  held  that  justification  is 
by  faith  and  faith  alone,  and  that  all  ceremonies  as 
means  of  grace  were  abolished  by  Christ.  To  him 
the  ordinances  were  only  outward  symbols  of  an 
inward  grace,  and  had  value  for  the  spiritual  life 
only  as  the  inward  meaning  was  apprehended 
through  the  outward  symbolic  act.  This  view 
would  seem  to  make  infant-baptism  meaningless 
and  even  absurd.  But  he  continued  it  while  he 
was  compelled  to  take  a  new  position  as  to  its 
significance  and  strike  out  a  new  line  of  argu- 
ment in  its  support.  It  can  be  said  with  confi- 
dence, sustained  by  historical  investigation,  that 
Zwingli  was  the  first  writer  in  Christian  history 
to  advocate  infant-baptism  on  other  grounds  than 

(92) 


Reformation — Zimngli  and  Calvin.  93 

its  magical  working  on  the  infant.  The  Pelagians 
had  said  that  it  was  necessary  to  introduce  chil- 
dren into  the  kingdom,  though  it  was  not  neces- 
sary to  their  salvation.  All  others  down  to 
Zwingli's  day  had  held  that  it  was  necessary  to 
salvation.  Zwingli  was  in  great  doubt  as  to  its 
retention  for  a  time,  and  many  of  his  followers 
believed  that  he  was  on  the  point  of  abandoning 
the  practice  altogether,  as  many  of  them  did.  But 
after  a  period  of  vacillation  and  uncertainty,  ap- 
parently led  by  practical  considerations  relating 
to  the  reform  movement,  he  decided  to  retain  and 
defend  the  practice  on  the  new  basis  made  neces- 
sary by  his  general  position  as  to  the  significance 
of  the  sacraments  to  which  he  denied  saving 
efficacy. 

Of  baptism  he  said:  "If  the  sacrament  had 
been  able  to  remove  sin,  Christ  would  not  have 
been  obliged  to  come  in  the  flesh,  but  would  have 
needed  only  to  institute  the  sacrament."  He  is 
conscious  that  in  this  matter  he  **thinks  differently 
from  any  other  ancient  or  modern  writer."  Be- 
ing unable  with  these  views  to  defend  infant- 
baptism  on  the  old  ground  that  it  effected  salva- 
tion he  adopted  as  his  line  of  defense  the 
position  that  baptism  succeeded  circumcision 
and  is  therefore  to  be  administered  to  Chris- 
tian children  on  the  same  ground  as  cir- 
cumcision was  administered  to  Jewish  children. 
It  had  its  value,  he  held,  in  the  fact  that  it  is  an 
act  of  consecration  on  the  part  of  the  parents, 
an  act  of  obedience  to  divine  command.    Just  as 


94  Infant-Baptism. 

Abraham  and  the  Jews  circumcised  their  children, 
thereby  incorporating  them  into  the  covenant  of 
grace  with  the  people  of  God;  so  Christian  par- 
ents are  to  baptize  their  children,  who  are  as  much 
children  of  God  as  themselves,  thereby  incorpo- 
rating them  into  the  covenant  of  Christian  grace 
among  the  people  of  God.  The  covenant  is  ex- 
actly the  same  in  both  the  old  and  the  new  dis- 
pensations ;  only  the  signs  of  the  covenants  differ. 
Christians,  as  a  sort  of  race,  succeed  to  the 
Jews  as  the  people  of  God,  and  baptism  succeeds 
to  circumcision  as  the  sign  of  that  relation.  As 
a  result  of  these  views  the  contention  is  advanced 
for  the  first  time  in  Christian  history  that  only 
the  children  of  Christian  parents  are  to  be  bap- 
tized. This  fact  shows  how  completely  the 
ground  for  the  defense  of  infant-baptism  has  been 
changed,  and  also  how  exactly  in  the  mind  of 
Zwingli  the  old  covenant  is  perpetuated  in  Chris- 
tianity. 

Baptism,  according  to  him,  introduced  infants 
into  the  outer  church  only,  not  into  the  true  spir- 
itual church  of  the  redeemed.  That  could  be  ac- 
complished only  by  the  exercise  of  personal  faith 
when  the  child  came  to  years.  He  thus  intro- 
duced a  sort  of  double  church  membership,  a 
quasi  membership  for  children  who  had  not 
reached  maturity,  and  a  real,  full  membership  for 
those  who  had  been  converted.  Nothing  like  this 
had  hitherto  existed  in  Christian  history. 

Unlike  the  other  reformers,  Zwingli  was 
strongly  inclined  to  believe  that  all  infants  dying 


Reformation — Zwingli  and  Calvin.  95 

in  infancy  were  of  the  elect  and  therefore  saved 
without  baptism.  This  view  introduced  further 
confusion  into  his  doctrine  of  infant-baptism  and 
weakened  the  sense  of  its  need.  Nevertheless, 
he  maintained  that  it  had  much  practical  value  in 
impressing  upon  parents  their  religious  obliga- 
tions to  their  children  and  upon  pastors  their  ob- 
ligations to  the  children  of  their  parishes.  Zwin- 
gli thus  finally  brought  himself,  after  consider- 
able struggle,  to  believe  that  infant-baptism  was 
not  anti-scriptural  and  hurtful  but  scriptural  and 
of  material  practical  value.  However,  he  was 
never  bold  enough  to  claim,  as  some  of  its  mod- 
ern advocates  do,  that  he  could  cite  any  scrip- 
tural command  for  or  example  of  infant-baptism. 
His  views  can  be  seen  from  this  quotation  taken 
from  his  "Refutation  of  Anabaptist  Tricks"  (page 
236) ,  where  he  says :  "As  the  Hebrews'  chil- 
dren, because  they  with  their  parents  were  un- 
der the  covenant,  merited  the  sign  of  the  cove- 
nant, so  also  Christians'  infants,  because  they  are 
covenanted  within  the  church  and  people  of 
Christ,  ought  in  no  way  to  be  deprived  of  bap- 
tism, the  sign  of  the  covenant"  (Jackson,  Selec- 
tions, etc.). 

Zwingli  is  an  important  character  in  the  his- 
tory of  infant-baptism.  Before  him  it  had,  with 
slight  modifications  by  the  Pelagians,  always 
been  regarded  as  possessing  magical  saving 
power,  effecting  the  regeneration  and  salvation 
of  the  morally  unconscious  infant.  This  view  is 
utterly  subversive  of  evangelical  Christianity  as 


96  Infant-Baptism. 

is  obvious  on  a  moment's  consideration,  and  as  is 
also  shown  by  the  history  of  the  bodies  that  hold 
this  position.  Zwingli  stripped  infant-baptism  of 
its  magical  power,  insisting  that  the  child  is  not 
regenerated  by  baptism,  but  must  be  converted 
through  the  exercise  of  saving  faith  in  future 
years,  its  relation  to  the  Church  being  exceptional 
until  that  time.  Moreover,  he  greatly  limited  its 
application  by  insisting  that  only  the  children  of 
Christian  parents  are  to  be  baptized.  He  thus 
laid  the  foundation  for  a  church  of  converted 
members  with  the  retention  of  infant-baptism  as 
a  sort  of  dedicatory  service.  In  his  hands  infant- 
baptism  became  something  totally  different  from 
anything  it  had  ever  before  been.  It  was  now 
little  more  than  a  ceremony  of  dedication,  with- 
out any  effect  on  the  child  except  as  it  was  sup- 
posed to  secure  for  him  more  careful  religious 
training  by  parents  and  pastors.  Evangelical 
pedobaptists  owe  him  a  debt  of  gratitude  of  in- 
calculable greatness.  He  took  a  ceremony  that 
had  grown  up  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Catholic 
system,  still  the  vehicle  of  the  very  essence  of  that 
system,  and  so  modified  it  that  it  could  be  re- 
tained without  utterly  subverting  the  evangelical 
principle. 

Calvin. 
John  Calvin,  the  founder  of  the  Calvinistic  "Re- 
formed" and  Presbyterian  churches  of  the  world, 
was  the  third  great  character  of  the  Reformation. 
His  views  of  baptism  and  the  Supper  are  very 
difficult  to  comprehend,  but  in  general  it  may  be 


Reformation — Zivingli  and  Calvin.  97 

said  that  he  held  a  position  between  those  of 
Luther  and  Zwingli.  He  beUeved  that  baptism 
promoted  our  faith  toward  God  and  testified  our 
faith  before  men.  It  was  "to  be  received  as  from 
the  hand  of  the  Author  himself,"  and  when  so  re- 
ceived it  promoted  faith  in  three  ways :  ( i )  It 
served  as  a  seal  and  assurance  that  "all  our  sins 
are  cancelled,  effaced  and  obliterated,  so  that  they 
will  never  appear  in  his  sight,  or  come  into  his 
remembrance,  or  be  imputed  to  us."  (2)  It  "is 
the  certain  testimony"  "that  we  are  not  only  in- 
grafted into  the  life  and  death  of  Christ,  but  are 
so  united  as  to  be  partakers  of  all  his  benefits." 
(3)  "It  shows  us  our  mortification  in  Christ,  and 
our  new  life  in  him."  Baptism  does  not  confer 
these  great  blessings,  but  it  is  God^s  method  of 
assuring  us  that  he  has  conferred  them  as  a  re- 
sult of  our  faith.  It  is  a  "seal,  not  to  give  effi- 
acy  to  the  promise  of  God  as  if  it  wanted  validity 
in  itself,  but  only  to  confirm  it  to  us."  But  "bap- 
tism also  serves  for  our  confession  before  men. 
For  it  is  a  mark  by  which  we  openly  profess  our 
desire  to  be  numbered  among  the  people  of  God, 
by  which  we  testify  our  agreement  with  all  Chris- 
tians in  the  worship  of  one  God,  and  in  one  reli- 
gion, and  by  which  we  make  a  public  declaration 
of  our  faith."  However,  it  must  never  be  for- 
gotten that  in  baptism  "we  obtain  nothing  except 
what  we  receive  by  faith.  If  faith  is  wanting,  it 
will  be  a  testimony  of  our  ingratitude,  to  render 
us  guilty  before  God,  because  we  have  not  be- 
lieved the  promise  given  in  the  sacrament." 


98  Infant-Baptism. 

These  are  his  general  views  on  baptism  as 
stated  in  his  chapter  on  baptism  in  the  Institutes 
(Book  IV,  chapter  XV).  No  advocate  of  faith- 
baptism  could  state  the  necessity  of  faith  more 
clearly  and  strongly.  Beyond  controversy  these 
principles,  fairly  interpreted,  nullified  infant-bap- 
tism, because  the  infant  at  the  time  of  its  baptism 
has  and  can  have  no  faith.  The  faith  of  the  in- 
fant is  neither  promoted  toward  God  nor  con- 
fessed before  men  in  baptism,  for  the  very  simple 
and  sufficient  reason  that  it  can  have  no  faith,  as 
Calvin  himself  admits.  The  most  that  he  can  say 
is  that  the  faith  of  the  child,  if  in  future  years 
it  shall  exercise  faith,  will  be  promoted  toward 
God  and  confessed  before  men  by  the  baptism 
that  it  received  in  unconsciousness,  when  it  had 
no  faith.  This  is  curious  reasoning.  Let  it  be 
repeated  that  Calvin's  principles  logically  abolish 
infant-baptism. 

And  yet  Calvin  seems  never  to  have  been  in 
doubt  about  the  scripturalness  and  propriety  of 
infant-baptism.  Like  Zwingli,  he  denied  that  in- 
fants are  regenerated  in  baptism  or  that  baptism 
is  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  elect  infants  dying 
in  infancy.  ''Infants  are  not  excluded  from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  who  happen  to  die  before 
they  have  had  the  privilege  of  baptism."  On  this 
ground  he  opposed  private  baptism  and  its  ad- 
ministration by  laymen  or  women.  Like  Zwin- 
gli, also,  he  based  his  main  defense  of  infant- 
baptism  on  the  claim  that  it  succeeded  to  cir- 
cumcision.   This  argument  he  buttressed  by  the 


Reformation — Zwingli  and  Calvin.  99 

fact  that  Jesus  said :  "Suffer  the  little  children 
to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Only  the  children  of 
believing  parents  are  thus  to  be  baptized;  they 
"thus  are  received  into  the  Church  by  a  solemn 
sign,  because  they  already  belonged  to  the  body 
of  Christ  by  virtue  of  the  promise." 

His  chapter  on  infant-baptism  is  long  and  la- 
bored (Institutes,  Book  IV,  chapter  XVI).  The 
genius  of  Calvin  was  not  equal  to  the  task  of  har- 
monizing this  practice  with  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples which  he  had  laid  down  in  the  preceding 
chapter.  He  admits,  of  course,  that  there  is  no 
mention  of  infant-baptism  in  the  Scriptures  nor 
any  express  command  to  administer  it.  However, 
he  believes  it  benefits  the  parents  by  giving  them 
the  assurance  that  their  children  are  the  heirs  of 
the  promises  and  the  objects  of  God's  grace,  while 
the  children  are  benefited  by  being  brought  into 
closer  relations  with  the  Church.  In  their  matur- 
ity, he  claimed,  this  baptism  acted  as  a  powerful 
stimulus  to  piety;  it  is  a  baptism  "into  future  re- 
pentance and  faith."  "They  will  hence  be  the 
more  inflamed  to  the  pursuit  of  that  renovation, 
with  the  token  of  which  they  find  themselves  to 
have  been  favored  in  their  earliest  infancy."  In- 
fant-baptism was  essential  to  the  system  of  state 
church  to  which  Calvin  clung,  and  hence  it  was 
retained,  notwithstanding  its  subversion  of  the 
fundamental  views  of  baptism  which  he  held  and 
stated  with  such  clearness  in  other  connections. 


CHAPTER  X. 


REFORMATION  AND  REVIVAL  IN 
ENGLAND. 


In  England  the  Reformation  was  never  so 
thorough  and  radical  as  on  the  continent.  More- 
over, the  earliest  reformatory  influence  was 
Lutheran.  Hence,  the  English  state  church  was 
less  removed  from  the  position  of  the  Catholics 
in  its  view  of  the  sacraments  than  the  other  Prot- 
estant bodies.  It  held  firmly  to  the  position  that 
baptism  is  the  sacrament  of  regeneration,  and 
necessary  to  salvation.  The  article  on  baptism  in 
the  XXXIX  Articles  states  that  baptism  is  "a 
sign  of  regeneration  or  new  birth,  whereby  as  by 
an  instrument,  they  that  receive  baptism  rightly 
are  grafted  into  the  church;  the  promises  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sin,  and  our  adoption  to  be  the 
sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  visibly  signed 
and  sealed;  faith  is  confirmed,  and  grace  in- 
creased by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God."  This 
confession  was  drawn  up  under  Calvinistic  in- 
fluence and  is  not  so  clearly  in  favor  of  baptismal 
regeneration  as  the  Prayer-Book  which  is  far 
more  Catholic  in  its  implications  of  doctrine.  In 
the  ritual  of  baptism  it  is  steadily  assumed  that 
regeneration  is  effected  by  baptism.  After  the 
baptismal  service  the  priest  is  made  to  say :  "We 
yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father, 

(100) 


Reformation  in  England.  IQl 

that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  in- 
fant with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thy 
own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him 
into  thy  holy  congregation." 

There  is  no  assumption  that  the  child  has  faith 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Lutherans.  And  yet  the  rit- 
ual which  is  used  was  produced  for  the  baptism 
of  believers  and  assumes  the  existence  of  faith  in 
the  recipient  of  baptism.  The  infant  is  asked: 
"Dost  thou  forsake  the  devil  and  all  his  works?" 
and  the  godparents  answer  in  the  name  of  the 
child :  "I  forsake  them  all."  "Dost  thou  believe 
in  God  the  Father  almighty,  etc.  ?"  The  godpar- 
ents answer:  "All  this  I  steadfastly  believe." 
And  so  on  throughout  the  service.  Faith  is  every- 
where implied. 

In  the  Anglican  Catechism  the  child  is  asked: 
"What  is  required  of  persons  to  be  baptized.'*" 
Answer :  "Repentance,  whereby  they  forsake  sin ; 
and  faith,  whereby  they  steadfastly  believe  the 
promises  of  God  made  to  them  in  the  sacrament." 
Ques. :  "Why,  then,  are  infants  baptized,  when  by 
reason  of  their  tender  age  they  cannot  perform 
them  ?"  Ans. :  "Because  they  promise  them  both 
by  their  sureties ;  which  promise,  when  they  come 
to  age,  themselves  are  bound  to  perform." 

These  quotations  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
ritual  used  for  infant-baptism  by  this  church,  even 
down  to  the  present  time,  was  wrought  out  for 
the  administration  of  faith-baptism.  It  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  condition  of  the  infant  and  puts 
baptism  on  a  wholly  artificial  basis.    Nothing  per- 


102  Infant-Baptism. 

haps  shows  more  convincingly  that  the  early 
Church  practiced  faith-baptism  than  the  old 
liturgies  of  baptism,  all  of  which  presuppose  gen- 
uine repentance  and  faith. 

While  the  Anglican  church  is  thus  committed 
to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  as  the 
basis  for  the  practice  of  infant-baptism,  it  was  far 
otherwise  with  the  English  and  American  Con- 
gregationalists.  Calvinism  under  the  name  of 
Puritanism  made  a  deep  impression  on  English 
Christianity  during  the  latter  half  of  the  six- 
teenth century.  Out  of  this  party  came  the  Con- 
gregationalists.  Convinced  that  the  reform  of 
the  English  church  was  hopeless,  Robert  Browne, 
the  founder  of  Congregationalism,  decided  to 
leave  it  altogether,  abandon  the  ideal  of  a  state 
church  which  should  include  within  its  folds  all 
Englishmen,  and  set  up  an  independent  body  com- 
posed of  believers  only.  These  were  to  be  bound 
together  by  the  voluntary  acceptance  of  a  cove- 
nant. He  thus  revived  in  England  the  idea 
that  the  church  is  not  coterminous  with  society 
but  is  a  distinct  body  within  the  social  order, 
into  which  the  individual  enters  voluntarily 
by  the  conscious  and  express  acceptance  of 
the  ideals  and  duties  agreed  upon  by  the  body. 
This  meant,  of  course,  the  complete  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State  and  the  exclusion 
of  the  idea  of  infant  church  membership  of 
even  a  quasi  nature.  The  supposed  necessity 
for  perpetuating  the  union  between  Church 
and  State  had  undoubtedly  been  one  of  the  deci- 


Reformation  in  England.  103 

sive  factors  in  the  retention  of  infant-baptism  by 
the  Reformers,  and  now  this  union  was  declared 
to  be  bad  and  only  bad  by  Browne.  Could  he 
retain  infant-baptism?  Well,  he  did,  but  was 
compelled  to  modify  further  its  significance  and 
defense.  He  did  not  regard  the  ceremony  as 
having  any  saving  significance,  nor  did  he  as- 
sume any  faith  in  the  child.  It  now  becomes 
solely  a  dedicatory  service  in  which  the  child  is 
dedicated  to  God  and  the  church.  It  is  no  longer 
based  on  natural  descent,  as  in  Calvinism,  or  on 
Christian  parentage,  as  with  Zwingli,  but  on  the 
basis  of  legal  control  over  and  moral  and  religious 
responsibility  for  the  child.  Consequently  it  is 
not  to  be  limited  to  the  children  of  Christian  par- 
ents, but  is  to  be  extended  to  these  and  to  all 
others  who  are  under  the  control  of  Christian 
men  and  women,  such  as  servants  and  wards. 
The  Christian  man  is  obligated  to  dedicate  to 
God  by  baptism  all  children  for  whom  he  is  re- 
sponsible. 

Browne  says :  "The  children  of  the  faith- 
ful, though  they  be  infants,  are  to  be  offered 
to  God  and  the  Church,  that  they  may  be  bap- 
tized. Also  those  infants  or  children  which  are 
of  the  household  of  the  faithful,  and  under  their 
full  power."  And  in  the  Confession  of  1596  it  is 
said  "that  such  as  be  of  the  seed,  or  under  the 
government  of  any  of  the  Church,  be  even  in  their 
infancy  received  to  baptism,  and  made  partakers 
of  the  sign  of  God's  covenant  made  with  the  faith- 
ful and  their  seed  throughout  all  generations." 
Thus  Browne  and  his  followers  laid  the  founda- 


1Q4  Infant-Baptism. 

tion  for  the  retention  of  infant-baptism  in  a  coun- 
try where  there  is  religious  freedom  under  the 
voluntary  system  as  in  the  United  States.  He  is 
an  important  figure  in  the  history  of  infant-bap- 
tism in  that  he  relieved  it  of  one  more  of  the 
evils  that  had  clung  to  it  from  the  start  and  made 
it  somewhat  more  consonant  with  evangelical 
Christianity.  This  has  been  the  chief  line  of  de- 
velopment among  evangelical  pedobaptists  from 
that  time  to  the  present  hour.  They  owe  their 
ability  to  preserve  infant-baptism  along  with 
evangelical  Christianity  principally  to  Zwingli 
and  Browne. 

It  might  have  been  expected  that  the  great 
evangelical  revival  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
would,  on  account  of  its  strong  emphasis  on  con- 
version and  religious  experience,  have  abandoned 
infant-baptism  altogether,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  historically  and  logically  inconsistent  with  this 
view  of  the  Christian  religion.  And  it  did  re- 
sult in  a  tremendous  growth  of  anti-pedobaptist 
sentiment  as  we  shall  see  later.  But  the  organized 
revival  under  the  leadership  of  the  Wesleys  clung 
to  infant-baptism.  The  failure  of  Wesley  to 
break  with  this  practice,  which  was  so  alien  to 
his  fundamental  ideas,  was  doubtless  due  to  the 
influence  which  the  English  church  exercised  over 
him  in  this  as  in  other  respects.  His  father  was 
a  rector  in  that  church,  and  John  strove  to  re- 
main a  consistent  member  of  the  body  till  his 
death.  He  organized  his  converts  into  "socie- 
ties" (not  "churches")  within  the  English  church 
and  apparently  never  intended  to  organize  a  sepa- 


Reformation  in  England.  105 

rate  "church."  His  liturgy  and  creed  were  only 
modifications  of  those  used  by  the  English 
church.  In  fact,  while  his  evangelical  warmth 
came  from  the  Moravians  and  his  organization 
was  the  product  of  his  own  genius  acting  amid 
the  exigencies  of  the  situation,  his  ecclesiastical 
views  remained  to  the  end  of  his  life  predomi- 
nantly Anglican.  It  is  not  particularly  surpris- 
ing, therefore,  to  find  him,  along  with  his  power- 
ful emphasis  on  religious  experience,  retaining 
infant-baptism  because  of  its  ecclesiastical  sig- 
nificance. 

In  his  "Treatise  on  Baptism,"  written  in  1756, 
he  maintains  that  infants  are  to  be  baptized  on 
the  following  grounds  :  ( i )  Infants  are  stained 
with  original  sin,  and  are  "children  of  wrath, 
and  liable  to  eternal  damnation;"  therefore,  "in- 
fants need  to  be  washed  from  original  sin,"  "see- 
ing in  the  ordinary  way,  they  cannot  be  saved 
unless  this  be  washed  away  by  baptism."  Bap- 
tism is  not  held  to  be  absolutely  the  only  way  an 
infant  can  be  saved,  as  the  Catholics  and  most 
Anglicans  held,  but  it  is  regarded  by  him  as  the 
"ordinary"  way  to  which  we  (though  not  God) 
are  bound.  He  holds  that  this  view  "is  agreeable 
to  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  ancient  fa- 
thers." (2)  "By  baptism  we  enter  into  covenant 
with  God;  into  that  everlasting  covenant,  which 
he  hath  commanded  forever."  Just  as  circumcision 
was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and 
was  administered  to  children,  so  baptism  is  the 
seal  of  the  same  covenant  now  and  is  therefore 
to  be  administered  to  children.    The  covenant  was 


log  Infant-Baptism. 

exactly  the  same  under  the  two  dispensations,  an 
everlasting  covenant,  only  the  form  of  the  seal 
being  different.  (3)  "By  baptism  we  are  ad- 
mitted into  the  church,  and  consequently  made 
members  of  Christ,  its  head/'  Infants  ought  to 
come  to  Christ  (Matt.  19:  I3f),  **but  they  cannot 
now  come  to  him,  unless  by  being  brought  into 
the  church ;  which  cannot  be  but  by  baptism.'* 
"Even  under  the  Old  Testament  they  were  ad- 
mitted into  it  by  circumcision.  And  can  we  sup- 
pose they  are  in  a  worse  condition  under  the 
gospel,  than  they  were  under  the  law?"  (4) 
"The  apostles  baptized  infants;"  this  was  argued 
from  the  alleged  practice  of  the  Jews  who,  it  was 
claimed,  both  circumcised  and  baptized  the  in- 
fants of  proselytes.  (5)  "To  baptize  infants  has 
been  the  general  practice  of  the  Christian  church, 
in  all  places  and  in  all  ages." 

True  to  the  confused  nature  of  the  Anglican 
church  and  the  diverse  origins  of  the  various  ele- 
ments of  the  Methodist  movement,  Wesley  here 
jumbles  together  reasons  which  are  incompati- 
ble with  each  other  and  makes  the  absurd  state- 
ment that  the  Christian  church  had  universally 
practiced  infant-baptism.  Fortunately  for  the 
world  his  religious  experience  was  far  better  than 
his  Anglican  traditions  and  his  knowledge  of 
Christian  history,  so  that  both  he  and  his  follow- 
ers relegated  infant-baptism  to  a  relatively  un- 
important place  in  the  plan  of  salvation  and  con- 
tinued to  preach  evangelical  religion  with  clear- 
ness and  power  notwithstanding  their  retention  of 
infant-baptism. 


Reformation  in  England.  107 

While  the  Protestants  were  thus  seeking  to 
defend  and  explain  the  old  Catholic  practice  of  in- 
fant-baptism so  that  it  would  not  nullify  their 
doctrines  of  "the  sole  authority  of  Scripture''  and 
** justification  by  faith  alone,"  the  two  great  Cath- 
olic churches  continued  to  hold  firmly  and  con- 
sistently to  the  practice  of  infant-baptism  on  the 
old  original  ground  that  it  was  necessary  to  sal- 
vation and  that  unconscious  infants  were  regen- 
erated in  the  act.  At  the  Council  of  Trent  in 
1545  it  was  decreed  for  the  Roman  Catholic 
church  (Canon  V,  on  Baptism)  :  "If  any  saith 
that  baptism  is  free,  that  is,  not  necessary  unto 
salvation:  let  him  be  anathema." 

The  Greek  Catholic  church  expressed  its  faith 
in  "The  Orthodox  Confession  of  the  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Eastern  Church"  in  1643.  I^  Qaestio 
CIII,  on  the  nature  and  fruit  of  baptism,  it  is  said 
that  it  "abolishes  all  sins,  in  infants  original  sin, 
in  adults  both  that  and  voluntary  sin." 

This  hurried  sketch  of  infant-baptism  in  the 
period  of  the  Reformation  and  the  two  subsequent 
centuries,  will  suffice  to  show  the  various  ways 
in  which  the  majority  of  those  who  broke  away 
from  the  Catholic  church  endeavored  to  justify 
and  explain  this  Catholic  practice  which  they  re- 
tained. Some  of  them  gave  it  a  different  sig- 
nificance and  invented  new  arguments  in  its  sup- 
port, but  could  not  see  their  way  to  abandon  it, 
notwithstanding  the  great  embarrassment  it 
caused  them.  It  had  become  too  firmly  rooted  in 
the  social,  political  and  religious  life  of  Europe 


108  Infant-Baptism. 

to  be  abolished  by  the  religious  cataclysm  of  the 
Reformation,  the  most  tremendous  effort  for  the 
recovery  of  evangelical  religion  since  its  gradual 
obscuration  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Chris- 
tian era.  Whole  nations  deserted  the  Catholic 
church  while  they  preserved  this  Catholic  prac- 
tice ;  great  theologians  sought  by  analogy  and  in- 
ference to  defend  it  from  the  silent  pages  of 
Scripture  and  harmonize  it  with  the  evangelical 
principles  which  they  preached ;  the  civil  arm  was 
called  in  to  enforce  the  baptism  of  infants  and  to 
burn,  drown  and  destroy  the  simple  people  whose 
piety  could  find  no  place  for  this  practice.  It  is 
a  pitiable  picture;  but  its  abandonment  would 
have  wrecked  the  idea  of  national  churches,  would 
have  automatically  worked  a  separation  of  Church 
and  State,  would  have  emancipated  the  individual 
from  servitude  to  the  institution,  would  have  es- 
tablished religious  freedom  with  a  cessation  of 
bloody  persecutions,  and  would  have  placed  evan- 
gelical religion  on  a  sure  and  permanent  founda- 
tion. The  Protestant  principles  legitimately  in- 
volve these  precious  fruits,  but  they  were  nega- 
tived by  the  retention  of  infant-baptism.  Pro- 
testants preserved  the  union  between  Church  and 
State  even  as  the  Catholics,  with  only  slight  varia- 
tions as  to  ideals;  they  persecuted  only  less  bit- 
terly than  the  Catholics.  Not  a  single  pedobap- 
tist  communion  of  the  sixteenth  century  is  free 
from  the  blood  of  Christian  martyrs.  The  oppo- 
nents of  infant-baptism  were  cast  out  as  evil  and 
paid  for  their  faithfulness  to  conscience  with  their 
blood. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


GROWTH  OF  ANTI-PEDOBAPTIST 
SENTIMENT. 


It  seems  probable  that  opposition  to  infant- 
baptism  had  never  entirely  ceased  since  the  be- 
ginning of  the  practice  at  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  Individuals  who  opposed  infant-bap- 
tism as  repugnant  to  Scripture  and  the  funda- 
mentals of  the  gospel,  appeared  at  intervals 
throughout  Christian  history  and  attained  suffi- 
cient prominence  to  leave  some  mark  on  Christian 
literature.  Besides  these  more  prominent  and  sig- 
nificant opponents  of  pedobaptism  there  must  have 
been  many  simpler  people  who,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  their  experience  of  grace  and  such  knowl- 
edge of  the  Scripture  as  they  could  obtain,  quietly 
neglected  the  practice  or  openly  opposed  it  with- 
out arousing  sufficient  ecclesiastical  controversy 
to  leave  any  marks  in  the  literature  of  the  time. 
But  whatever  may  be  the  facts  as  to  the  existence 
of  opposition  to  this  practice  in  the  darkest  period 
of  the  Middle  Ages  it  is  a  fact  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  contradiction  that  determined  opposition 
reappears  as  soon  as  the  great  revival  of  reli- 
gion and  culture  begins  and  the  Bible  is  once 
more  in  the  language  of  the  people.  For  cen- 
turies  during  the   Middle  Ages  the  Bible  was 

(109) 


XIQ  Infant-Baptism. 

almost  unknown  to  the  masses  of  the  people  of 
Western  Europe.  In  the  early  centuries  it  had 
been  loved  and  trusted  and  had  been  translated 
into  the  languages  of  the  peoples  among  whom 
Christianity  spread.  It  was  thus  found  in  en- 
tirety or  in  part  in  Greek,  Latin,  Syriac,  Coptic 
and  Gothic  by  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  But 
as  the  Christian  world  drifted  away  from  its  scrip- 
tural moorings  and  the  idea  of  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority replaced  that  of  the  Bible,  the  Book  fell 
into  disuse  and  finally  into  disfavor  as  a  book  to 
be  entrusted  to  the  people.  At  the  same  time  the 
old  Graeco-Roman  culture  was  rapidly  dying  out 
and  leaving  Western  Europe  in  almost  total 
intellectual  darkness.  The  Goths  were  amalga- 
mated with  the  earlier  inhabitants  of  southwest- 
ern Europe  and  their  language  disappeared. 
Spoken  Latin  gradually  changed  into  Italian, 
French,  Spanish  and  Portuguese  till  the  old  Latin 
into  which  the  Bible  had  been  translated  was  no 
longer  understood  by  the  masses  of  the  people. 
No  new  translations  were  made  for  several  cen- 
turies after  the  days  of  Jerome,  leaving  the  Bible 
securely  locked  in  the  vaults  of  a  dead  language 
which  could  be  opened  only  by  the  learned. 
Thus  through  fear  of  its  effects  and  the  ignorance 
of  the  people  the  Bible  was  practically  taken  away 
from  them.  The  Church  was  left  to  continue  its 
drift  even  more  rapidly  and  to  work  its  utmost 
effects  on  the  people  who  were  now  wholly  de- 
pendent on  it  for  their  religious  instruction  with- 
out possessing  any  standard  by  which  they  could 


Anti-Pedobaptist  Sentiment.  Xll 

test  or  check  its  teachings  or  practices.  The  Bible 
has  always  been  the  bulwark  of  faith-baptism,  and 
it  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  we  hear  little  of 
faith-baptism  while  the  Bible  is  so  nearly  an  un- 
known book. 

But  as  the  terrible  German  tribes  whose  bar- 
barism had  done  so  much  to  bring  on  the  Dark 
Ages  settled  down  and  established  some  political 
and  social  organization,  culture  began  to  revive 
on  the  old  classical  soil  and  the  Germans  them- 
selves began  to  accept  the  culture  and  religion  of 
their  dependents,  Vincti  victores  again.  One  of 
the  first  things  which  this  new  culture  undertook 
was  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures.  Parts  were 
put  into  the  Gothic  in  the  fourth  century  and  into 
Anglo-Saxon  as  early  as  the  eighth  century.  The 
work  of  translating  continued  at  intervals  until 
the  Bible  in  whole  or  in  part  existed  in  most  of 
the  languages  of  Western  Europe  even  before  the 
Reformation.  Its  circulation  was  very  limited, 
however,  and  its  influence  not  great. 

The  great  revival  which  began  in  Western 
Europe  in  the  eleventh  century  almost  immedi- 
ately produced  sects  in  opposition  to  more  or  less 
of  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Catholic 
church.  Among  other  things  several  of  them  op- 
posed infant-baptism.  This  was  true  of  some  of 
the  Waldenses,  at  least  in  the  earlier  years  of 
their  history.  Likewise  many  of  the  Petrobru- 
sians  and  Henricans  were  determined  opponents 
and  suffered  for  their  convictions.  But  the  Cath- 
olic church  was  able  to  suppress  these  movements 


1\2  Infant-Baptism. 

in  large  measure  before  the  Reformation  through 
the  use  of  the  Inquisition  and  the  power  of  the 
civil  arm.  Anti-pedobaptism  was  largely  de- 
stroyed at  the  stake. 

With  the  revival  of  culture  and  the  translation 
of  the  Scriptures  in  the  fifteenth  century  there 
came  a  revival  of  religion,  and  these  forces  soon 
developed  opposition  to  infant-baptism.  We  have 
already  seen  these  sentiments  among  several  of 
the  more  evangelical  sects  of  the  later  Middle 
Ages.  It  did  not,  however,  become  sufficiently 
prominent  in  their  systems  to  dominate  and  give 
name  to  them.  Nevertheless  it  was  the  beginning 
in  modern  times  of  the  serious  and  successful 
opposition  to  pedobaptism  which  has  continued  to 
grow  with  the  growth  of  religious  freedom,  cul- 
ture, Bible  knowledge  and  evangelical  activity 
down  to  the  present  hour.  Faith-baptism  is  not 
a  baptism  of  the  darkness  and  ignorance  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  but  of  the  light  and  freedom  of  Bi- 
ble days  and  modern  times.  The  period  of  tri- 
umph for  infant-baptism  was  the  depths  of  the 
Middle  Ages  when  thick  darkness  covered  the 
peoples,  liberty  was  gone  and  the  Bible  was  an 
almost  unknown  book.  With  the  return  of  light 
anti-pedobaptism  revived  and  has  continued  to 
grow.  These  indisputable  facts  are  very  gratify- 
ing to  anti-pedobaptists,  stimulating  the  hope  that 
evangelical  pedobaptists  will  all  finally  abandon 
this  anti-evangelical.  Catholic  practice,  and  re- 
store faith-baptism  as  the  Lord  and  his  apostles 
commanded  it. 


Anti-Pedohaptist  Sentiment.  113 

The  Reformation  was  accompanied  by  a 
great  outburst  of  anti-pedobaptist  sentiment  which 
all  the  churches  were  unable  to  suppress.  This 
great  religious  revival  seemed  to  call  it  forth 
simultaneously  at  several  points  in  Europe,  while 
the  earliest  centers  were  naturally  Wittenberg  and 
Zurich  where  Luther  and  Zwingli  worked. 
Around  these  two  great  leaders  and  among  their 
followers  powerful  anti-pedobaptist  movements 
quickly  developed.  At  Wittenberg  two  of  the  pro- 
fessors in  the  University  in  which  Luther  was 
himself  a  professor  embraced  these  views  and 
were  driven  from  their  positions;  a  good  many 
pastors  and  thousands  upon  thousands  of  the 
German  people  lost  faith  in  infant-baptism  and 
advocated  its  abandonment.  Luther  and  other 
leaders  proceeded  to  the  most  energetic  measures 
and  finally  called  in  the  civil  arm  to  suppress  the 
(to  them)  dangerous  movement.  Tens  of  thou- 
sands of  anti-pedobaptists  perished  in  Germany 
during  the  ten  years  from  1525  to  1535.  In  Ger- 
many the  movement  was  largely  suppressed. 

Around  Zwingli  and  among  his  friends  and 
supporters  in  Switzerland  and  South  Germany 
there  developed  an  even  stronger  anti-pedobaptist 
movement.  Scholars  and  university-bred  men 
like  Felix  Manz,  Conrad  Grebel,  Ludwig  Hatzer, 
John  Denck  and  Balthaser  Hubmaier,  priests  and 
monks  and  a  great  host  of  the  laity,  renounced  the 
baptism  they  had  received  in  their  infancy  and 
obtained  a  faith-baptism.  They  made  an  excel- 
lent translation  of  the  Prophets  from  the  Hebrew 


114  Infant-Baptism. 

into  the  German ;  they  organized  churches  on  the 
basis  of  faith-baptism  and  established  a  very  ac- 
tive itinerant  ministry  for  the  propagation  of  their 
views.  The  movement  began  its  separate  organ- 
ized existence  the  latter  part  of  1524  and  spread 
swiftly  to  all  those  parts  of  Germany,  Switzer- 
land, Austria  and  the  Netherlands  in  which  the 
Reformation  had  been  accepted.  Even  the  far- 
away Scandinavian  countries  and  a  little  later 
England  and  Scotland  felt  the  impact  of  the 
movement.  So  powerful  was  it  for  a  few  years 
that  almost  every  Reformer  of  any  prominence  or 
ability  entered  the  theological  lists  against  these 
advocates  of  faith-baptism  whom  they  dubbed 
Anabaptists  or  Wiedertaufer,  that  is,  rebaptizers. 
A  flood  of  polemical  pamphlets  poured  from  the 
presses  of  Germany,  Switzerland  and  the  Nether- 
lands and  all  the  great  Confessions  of  Faith 
drawn  up  in  this  period  condemn  Anabaptism  ex- 
pressly or  by  direct  implication.  Soon  civil  gov- 
ernments were  induced  to  intervene  in  an  effort 
to  suppress  the  movement  by  force;  thousands 
suffered  martyrdom  by  fire,  sword  and  drown- 
ing, and  thousands  more  were  left  to  rot  and  die 
in  the  noisome  prisons  of  that  time.  Thus  the 
most  promising  anti-pedobaptist  movement  since 
the  appearance  of  infant-baptism  was  virtually 
extinguished  in  blood.  Anabaptists  continued  to 
exist,  it  is  true,  hidden  away  in  the  remote  vil- 
lages of  various  lands ;  but  the  world  had  been  so 
bitterly  prejudiced  against  them  as  to  condemn 
their  message  unheard;  moreover  the  sufferings 


Anti-Pedobaptist  Sentiment.  115 

through  which  they  had  passed  had  shorn  them  of 
their  leaders  and  their  power.  They  lost  their 
aggressive  spirit;  retired  into  the  safety  of  ob- 
scurity and  inactivity  and  ceased  to  be  of  any 
force  in  the  world.  They  never  entirely  disap- 
peared from  Switzerland  and  the  Netherlands, 
but  they  dwindled  into  a  small  sect  that  was  tol- 
erated because  of  its  insignificance. 

And  what  were  the  views  of  this  sect  which 
was  so  much  hated  and  feared  by  both  State  and 
Church?  Religiously  they  were  striving  for  the 
freedom  and  autonomy  of  the  individual  soul  and 
the  purity  and  spiritual  power  of  each  individual 
church, — a  church  of  redeemed  people,  saints,  liv- 
ing holy  lives,  and  associated  together  by  their 
own  choice,  on  the  basis  of  a  common  faith,  for 
the  spread  and  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  symbol  and  seal  of  these  spiritual  treas- 
ures was  faith-baptism,  accepted  freely  by  each 
soul  as  a  testimonial  of  its  own  faith  and  its  own 
self-consecration  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  They 
opposed  infant-baptism  as  the  invention  of  men, 
a  perversion  of  Scripture,  the  bulwark  of  Anti- 
Christ,  the  chief  cornerstone  of  the  papacy  with  all 
its  errors,  a  necessary  link  in  the  union  of  Church 
and  State,  the  foundation  principle  in  religious 
persecutions  and  the  nullification  of  evangelical 
Christianity.  They  argued  against  it  chiefly  from 
Scripture,  not  only  denying  the  existence  of  bibli- 
cal precept  or  example  for  the  practice,  but  also 
asserting  that  it  contravened  essential  scriptural 
principles.    Around  infant-baptism  the  whole  con- 


116  Infant-Baptism. 

troversy  raged ;  but  behind  the  baptismal  contro- 
versy lay  deeper  things  which  gave  to  the  con- 
troversy its  signficance.  The  nature  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  itself  and  the  relation  of  the  Church 
to  the  individual  soul  and  to  all  society  were  in- 
volved ;  the  freedom  of  the  soul  was  at  stake. 

In  addition  to  their  religious  views  the  Anabap- 
tists advocated  certain  social,  political  and  econo- 
mic doctrines  which  were  regarded  as  danger- 
ous to  the  whole  social  order.  They  admitted  that 
the  State  was  ordained  of  God,  but  held  that  it 
was  a  necessary  evil  organized  because  of  the  sin- 
fulness of  man.  For  this  and  other  reasons  they 
denied  that  any  Christian  man  could  hold  civil 
office ;  they  refused  to  take  the  oath  for  any  pur- 
pose; they  opposed  war  and  refused  to  pay  war 
taxes  or  bear  arms ;  they  objected  to  capital  pun- 
ishment and  did  not  allow  their  members  to  en- 
gage in  the  liquor  business ;  some  of  them  advo- 
cated community  of  goods  and  opposed  the  lend- 
ing of  money  on  interest.  They  denied  to  the 
State  the  power  to  punish  any  but  civil  offenses, 
reserving  for  church  discipline,  which  they  ad- 
ministered very  strictly,  all  purely  moral  and  re- 
ligious offenses.  They  contended  that  the  Church 
should  have  complete  autonomy  in  all  religious 
matters  and  that  the  State  has  no  religious  duties, 
it  being  in  their  conception  a  purely  secular  body. 
The  State  should  neither  support  nor  control  the 
Church.  In  a  word,  they  advocated  religious  free- 
dom in  every  sense  of  the  word.  They  struggled 
to  introduce  the  voluntary  system  as  the  most 


Anti-Pedohaptist  Sentiment.  117 

advanced  nations  of  earth  are  introducing  it  to- 
day. Their  chief  crime  against  society  was  that 
they  were  several  centuries  ahead  of  their  gen- 
eration. They  attained  this  distinction  by  going 
back  frankly  and  fully  to  the  eternal  spiritual 
principles  of  the  gospel  as  revealed  in  the  New 
Testament. 

Under  the  stress  of  persecution  some  of  the 
more  ignorant  and  radical  ran  into  wild  fanaticism 
and  even  moral  excesses,  which  brought  deep  re- 
proach on  the  whole  cause.  The  most  flagrant 
case  of  this  kind  was  that  of  Mtinster  when  in 
1535  the  Anabaptists  gained  control  of  the  city 
and  fell  into  such  excesses  as  to  make  them  a 
stench  in  the  nostrils  of  all  Europe.  But  that 
fanaticism  and  license  are  not  logical  fruits  of 
their  views,  as  was  then  maintained,  has  been 
shown  by  the  whole  history  of  religious  freedom 
in  the  United  States  and  elsewhere. 

But  the  evil  was  done,  the  party  was  discredited 
and  on  the  decline;  the  forces  opposed  to  the 
scriptural  principles  lying  at  the  base  of  faith- 
baptism  were  too  strong  to  yield.  They  could  not 
wholly  exterminate  anti-pedobaptism,  but  they 
did  isolate,  nullify  and  render  it  negligible. 

From  the  continent  the  anti-pedobaptist  move- 
ment was  soon  transplanted  to  England.  Here 
it  met  much  the  same  treatment  as  on  the  con- 
tinent. Henry  VHI  and  his  successors  proceeded 
against  it  vigorously  and  ruthlessly.  In  the  early 
days  of  its  history  in  England  it  seems  to  have 
been  found  among  foreigners  altogether,  and  it 


113  Infant-Baptism. 

did  not  afifect  the  English  people  until  they  were 
aroused  by  the  Puritan  controversy  of  the  last 
half  of  the  sixteenth  and  the  first  half  of  the  sev- 
enteenth centuries.  Some  of  the  peculiar  social, 
religious,  political  and  economic  views  it  had  held 
on  the  continent  were  then  abandoned  and  what 
is  ordinarily  known  as  the  English  Baptist  move- 
ment emerged  from  it  about  1611.  It  was  still 
known  as  Anabaptism  and  was  bitterly  persecuted 
till  Cromwell's  regime  brought  a  measure  of  re- 
ligious freedom  to  England.  It  then  grew  very 
rapidly  and  by  the  end  of  the  century  there  were 
more  than  a  hundred  churches  and  several  thou- 
sand members.  This  growth  they  had  achieved  in 
little  more  than  a  half  century  under  the  pressure 
of  continuous  persecution  except  during  the  brief 
period  of  Cromwell's  power.  Moreover  they  were 
themselves  divided  into  two  warring  parties,  one 
of  which  embraced  the  Calvinistic  and  the  other 
the  Arminian  system  of  theology.  In  other  re- 
spects they  were  fairly  harmonious  in  faith  and 
practice.  They  were  called  Anabaptists  by  their 
opponents,  but  usually  called  themselves  "breth- 
ren" and  their  churches  simply  "churches  of 
Christ"  or  "baptized  churches  of  Christ." 

When  persecution  ceased  in  1689  the  proba- 
bilities of  rapid  expansion  seemed  great.  Free- 
dom from  the  oppressive  hand  of  the  State  had 
not  been  enjoyed  by  those  who  cherished  anti- 
pedobaptist  sentiments  for  centuries,  and  free- 
dom was  apparently  the  one  thing  necessary  for 
gfrowth.     But  they  soon  felt  the  chill  of  the  ra- 


AntirPedohapUst  Sentiment.  119 

tionalism  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Spiritual 
coldness  and  deadness  seized  them,  activity 
largely  ceased,  an  excessive  interest  in  the  purely 
intellectual  side  of  Christianity  developed.  Most 
of  the  Arminian  wing  became  Unitarian  and  the 
others  became  hyper-Calvinists.  Naturally  growth 
ceased.  They  were  probably  not  so  numerous  at 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  as  they  had 
been  at  the  beginning. 

In  the  meantime  the  prefix  "Ana"  was  being 
gradually  dropped  from  the  name,  and  they  be- 
gan to  be  known  simply  as  Baptists.  By  the  year 
1800  the  term  "Anabaptist"  had  almost  disap- 
peared from  use  both  in  England  and  America. 
Before  this  time  the  Baptists  had  begun  to  feel 
the  refreshing  effects  of  the  great  evangelical  re- 
vival. The  Arminians  were  largely  saved  from 
their  Unitarianism  and  the  Calvinists  from  their 
rigid  hyper-Calvinism  and  antinomianism.  The 
period  of  prosperity  was  at  hand. 

In  America  anti-pedobaptist  sentiments  made 
themselves  manifest  early  in  the  history  of  the 
English  settlements  in  Massachusetts.  Roger 
Williams  and  others  began  the  agitation  of  the 
question  in  the  thirties  of  the  seventeenth  century 
and  by  1639  had  been  banished  from  Massachu- 
setts and  had  established  a  colony  and  an  anti- 
pedobaptist  church  in  Rhode  Island.  They  were 
immediately  dubbed  "Anabaptists"  and  all  the 
stigma  that  had  attached  to  them  in  the  Old 
World  was  transferred  to  the  New.  From  this 
center  they  spread  by  degrees  throughout  all  the 


120  Infant-Baptism. 

English  colonies,  meeting  suspicion  and  obloquy 
everywhere  and  at  places,  notably  in  Massachu- 
setts and  Virginia,  suffering  severe  persecution. 
The  growth  and  vicissitudes  of  anti-pedobap- 
tists  in  this  country  were  in  general  parallel  with 
their  history  in  the  mother  country.  During  the 
eighteenth  century  they  met  powerful  opposition 
and  suffered  from  the  prevalent  spiritual  decline. 
But  during  this  time  they  sloughed  off  the  name 
"Anabaptist"  and  began  to  respond  to  the  blessed 
influence  of  the  Great  Awakening  which  was  now 
sweeping  over  the  country.  They  had  suffered 
from  the  spirit  of  division  and  isolation,  and  their 
growth  had  been  very  slow.  By  1790  there  were 
perhaps  a  hundred  thousand,  but  they,  too,  were 
now  standing  on  the  threshold  of  their  period  of 
prosperity. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THE  CHILD  AND  THE  KINGDOM— THE 
NEW  PELAGIANISM. 


Infant-baptism  is  still  practiced  and  tenderly 
cherished  by  the  great  mass  of  the  Christian 
world.  In  those  countries  where  the  union  be- 
tween Church  and  State  is  still  intact — states  like 
Russia,  Germany  and  Austria, — the  practice  of  in- 
fant-baptism is  almost  universal.  The  Greek  and 
the  Roman  Catholic  churches  in  all  lands  where 
they  exist  still  insist  that  baptism  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  salvation.  On  this  ground  they  bap- 
tize all  infants,  lest  dying  in  infancy  they  be  barred 
from  the  vision  of  the  face  of  God  forever  and 
be  confined  in  the  limbo  prepared  for  unbaptized 
infants  who  die  in  infancy.  Many,  if  not  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Lutherans  in  all  lands  continue  to 
baptize  infants  for  the  same  reason,  the  regenerat- 
ing power  of  baptism.  The  ritualistic  wing  of 
the  Anglican  or  Episcopal  church  likewise  be- 
lieves in  baptismal  regeneration,  and  practices  in- 
fant-baptism for  this  reason.  All  these  churches 
continue  infant-baptism  on  its  original  basis,  that 
is,  its  magical  regenerating  effects  on  the  uncon- 
scious infant.  As  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding 
chapters  this  was  the  sole  recognized  ground  for 
the  practice  down  to  the  Reformation.  These 
churches  do  not  consider  any  religious  experience 

(121) 


199.  Infant-Baptism. 

2L  "conversion,"  but  only  an  ''awakening."  They 
hold  that  the  child  was  regenerated  in  its  baptism, 
needing  thereafter  only  instruction  and  direction. 

On  the  other  hand,  evangelical  pedobaptists — 
Presbyterians,  "Reformed,"  Congregationalists, 
Methodists  and  a  few  minor  parties — have  be- 
come more  evangelical  in  this  last  period.  Most 
of  them  insist  on  conversion  through  the  exer- 
cise of  repentance  and  a  living  faith.  This  reli- 
gious experience  must  precede  the  beginning  of 
real  church  membership.  Baptized  infants  hold  a 
wholly  ambiguous  and  uncertain  position  in  re- 
lation to  church  membership,  undefined  and  in- 
definable. Infant-baptism  is  continued  as  a  social 
custom  while  the  actual  religious  life  of  the  in- 
dividual is  begun  and  fostered  much  as  among 
the  anti-pedobaptists.  It  still  nullifies  faith-bap- 
tism and  prevents  its  members  from  obeying  the 
plain  command  of  Christ  to  everyone  that  be- 
lieves, the  command  to  be  baptized. 

Quite  recently  the  whole  question  has  taken  on  a 
new  form.  Within  the  last  dozen  or  fifteen  years 
there  has  occurred  a  marked  revival  of  the  old 
Pelagian  conception  of  the  child.  Pelagius  and 
his  supporters  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  con- 
tended that  the  new-born  babe  was  absolutely 
innocent  and  unpolluted  by  sin,  that  its  nature 
was  untainted  by  inheritance  from  its  ancestors, 
but  pure  like  that  of  Adam  before  the  fall;  in 
short,  that  actual  sin  was  due  to  environment 
and  in  no  sense  or  degree  to  heredity.  He  ad- 
mitted that  human  beings  fall  into  sin  as  they 


The  New  Pelagianism.  123 

advance  in  life,  but  affirmed  that  this  tragic  fact 
was  due  to  imitation  of  their  elders  and  not  to 
any  evil  tendencies  within  themselves.  These 
views  precipitated  a  long  and  tedious  controversy 
which  resulted  in  their  repudiation  by  the  Chris- 
tian world  almost  unanimously.  They  were  felt 
to  be  false  to  the  testimony  of  experience  and 
the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  to  be  dangerous 
in  their  practical  tendencies.  Even  the  great  up- 
heaval of  the  Reformation  did  not  stimulate  any 
serious  revival  of  this  discarded  conception  of 
child  nature.  Lutheranism,  Calvinism  and  Ar- 
minianism,  while  differing  widely  on  many  points, 
were  agreed  as  to  the  presence  of  some  taint  of 
sin  in  all  human  beings.  They  believed  that 
human  nature  was  poisoned  at  its  roots  in  Adam. 
However  much  Christian  thinkers  might  differ 
as  to  details,  they  were  a  unit  in  the  conviction 
that  Scripture,  Christian  experience  and  the  uni- 
versality of  sin  in  adults  made  inescapable  the 
conclusion  that  the  child,  at  birth,  is  somehow 
and  in  some  degree  tainted  or  weakened  or  cor- 
rupted by  sin. 

But  toward  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century 
the  Christian  world  suddenly  became  conscious 
of  its  surpassing  excellencies.  Human  nature,  it 
was  contended,  is  not  so  bad  as  the  pessimistic 
old  theologians  conceived  it.  The  doctrine  of 
the  fatherhood  of  God  was  emphasized  as  never 
before,  the  doctrines  of  the  atonement  and  re- 
demption were  mininuied  and  relegated  to  the 


124  Infant-Baptism. 

scrapheap  of  the  outworn,  the  death  on  Calvary 
was  no  longer  regarded  as  sacrificial.  These 
and  related  views,  resting  on  an  exceedingly 
shallow  view  of  human  nature,  became  widely 
current.  It  was  inevitable  that  the  older  con- 
ception of  the  nature  of  the  child  should  be  af- 
fected. Turning  away  from  the  findings  of 
the  older  theology  and  even  from  the  teachings 
of  Scripture,  men  in  whom  this  tendency  was 
strong  found  their  chief  support  in  the  supposed 
conclusions  of  science.  Biology  and  physiology 
discovered  that  the  child,  in  its  embryonic  and 
infantile  state  and  development,  was  remarkably 
like  the  other  vertebrates ;  was,  in  fact,  an  animal. 
Child  psychology  penetrated,  or  claimed  to  pene- 
trate, the  child  soul  and  there  found  nothing 
either  good  or  bad.  In  a  word,  science  could  find 
no  trace  of  sin  in  the  child's  soul  or  body,  and 
hence  concluded  that  there  could  be  no  taint  of 
sin  there.  Such  was  the  argument,  or  at  least 
the  course  of  reasoning,  pursued  by  many  advo- 
cates of  the  sinlessness  of  the  infant.  The  fact 
that  all  children  eventually  become  sinners  if 
they  grow  to  maturity  gave  the  new  Pelagians 
some  pause,  but  this  difficulty  was  surmounted 
in  one  way  or  another.  Hence  followed  the 
bold  assumption  and  contention  that  all  children, 
being .  innocent  and  untainted  by  sin,  children 
of  God  at  birth,  are  to  be  baptized  on  the  basis  of 
this  supposedly  sinless  state.  They  are  in  the  king- 
dom, need  no  conversion  or  regeneration.     The 


The  New  Pelagianism.  125 

task  of  parents  is  not  to  bring  them  to  a  saving 
knowledge  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  for  they  need 
no  salvation;  their  task  is  rather  to  keep  the 
child  from  falling  out  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
of  which  each  was  a  member  when  he  was  born 
into  the  world. 

These  views,  current  chiefly  among  the  Con- 
gregationalists  and  Methodists,  but  not  entirely 
wanting  in  several  other  denominations,  have 
found  more  or  less  full  and  clear  expression  in  a 
number  of  works  on  child  nature  and  religion 
in  the  last  few  years.  One  of  the  frankest  and 
clearest  popular  statements  appeared  in  a  book- 
let by  Dr.  John  T.  McFarland,  bearing  the  title, 
''Preservation  versus  The  Rescue  of  the  Child." 
On  account  of  his  prominence  and  representative 
position  in  the  Northern  Methodist  church  he  is 
here  quoted  at  some  length.  The  excerpts  from 
this  little  work  will  make  his  views  perfectly 
clear.  He  says,  on  page  8:  "The  child  begins 
life  as  a  child  of  God.  .  .  .  The  child  is  the 
only  thing  which  Jesus  ever  held  up  as  a  sample 
of  the  kingdom."  Again,  on  page  13,  he  says: 
"The  child  begins  life  as  a  child  of  God.  .  .  . 
The  child  does  not  require  to  be  rescued.  The 
child  does  not  need  to  be  brought  back  into  the 
kingdom,  because  the  child  is  already  in  the 
kingdom.  The  great  responsibility  and  the 
great  duty  of  the  church,  consequently,  is  not  the 
rescue  of  little  children,  but  their  preservation. 
They  are  in  the  kingdom;  our  business  is  to  see 


126  Infant-Baptism. 

that  they  remain  in  the  kingdom.  .  .  .  We 
should  impress  it  upon  children  in  the  begin- 
ning of  their  lives  that  they  belong  to  the 
heavenly  Father's  house,  and  that  the  wisest 
thing  which  they  can  do  is  to  remain  contentedly, 
obediently,  and  happily  in  that  house." 

A  slightly  different  but  closely  related  view 
of  the  child's  nature  is  found  in  the  baptismal 
ritual  of  the  Southern  Methodist  church.  It 
reads  as  follows:  ''Dearly  beloved,  forasmuch 
as  all  men,  though  fallen  in  Adam,  are  born  into 
this  world  in  Christ  the  Redeemer,  heirs  of  life 
eternal,  subjects  of  the  saving  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,"*  etc.  Here  the  conception  is  not  that  the 
child  is  born  free  from  the  contamination  of 
original  sin,  but  that  it  is  born  redeemed  and 
saved. 

Views  very  similar  to  the  last  exist  among 
Presbyterians,  except  that  they  limit  the  benefits 
of  Christ's  death  to  the  children  of  believing 
parents.  For  example,  it  is  said  in  a  book  cir- 
culated by  the  Westminster  Press,  presumably 
with  the  endorsement  of  the  Northern  Presby- 
terian church:  **The  children  of  believers  are 
to  be  treated  as  regenerate,"**  that  is,  at  their 
natural  birth.  Again  it  is  said,  "Not  only  is  the 
regeneration  from  earliest  infancy  of  the  children 
of  believers  possible  and  credible,  but  Scripture 

♦Doctrine  and  Discipline,  p.  537,  quoted  by  Weaver, 
Religious  Development  of  the  Child,  p.  63. 

**White,  Why  Infants  are  Baptized,  p.  45. 


The  New  Pelagianism.  127 

expressions  encourage  us  to  expect  it.  .  .  . 
Facts  in  the  Church  favor  the  belief  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  to  be  presumed  regen- 
erate till  the  contrary  appears.* 

These  quotations  are  sufficient  to  set  forth  the 
fundamental  convictions  of  this  modern  school 
of  thinkers.  They  show  differences  in  detail 
but  are  agreed  in  the  general  results.  The 
Methodists  apply  their  views  to  all  infants, 
whether  they  are  children  of  Christian  or  non- 
Christian  parents;  the  Presbyterians  confine 
their  statements  to  the  children  of  believing 
parents.  The  first  quotation  seems  to  indicate 
that  the  author  believes  that  all  infants  are  in- 
herently innocent  and  wholly  unaffected  by 
hereditary  sin,  and  the  second  plainly  states  that 
though  fallen  in  Adam  they  are  all  redeemed  in 
Christ,  while  the  third  claims  regeneration  for 
the  children  of  believing  parents.  In  effect  the 
views  are  the  same :  all  newborn  children  (or 
children  of  believing  parents)  are  born  into  the 
world  in  Christ,  regenerate,  in  a  state  of  grace, 
in  the  kingdom,  in  the  church.  Various  terms 
and  phrases  are  used,  all  meaning  substantially 
the  same  thing,  and  upon  the  basis  of  this  as- 
sumption it  is  claimed  that  infants  are  to  be  bap- 
tized. They  are  as  much  children  of  God  as 
believing  adults,  and  are,  therefore,  to  be  bap- 
tized as  repentant  and  believing  adults  are  to  be 
baptized.      The    advocates   of   this   view   claim 


♦White,  Why  Infants  are  Baptized,  p.  48. 


128  Infant-Baptism. 

that  they  have  but  one  baptism  for  all,  that  they 
baptize  children  and  adults  for  exactly  the  same 
reason,  that  is,  because  they  are  children  of  God. 
Baptism,  it  is  claimed,  is  a  recognition  of  that 
fact. 

This  reasoning,  it  must  be  confessed,  gives  to 
infant-baptism  a  show  of  rationality  and  scrip- 
turalness  that  it  has  never  before  enjoyed.  Mani- 
festly the  Scriptures  set  forth  but  one  baptism, 
and  yet  evangelical  pedobaptists  have  always 
had  two  baptisms :  one  based  on  faith  for  be- 
lieving adults,  and  one  for  infants  based  on 
something  else.  This  view  of  baptism,  if  tena- 
ble, relieves  them  of  this  embarrassment.  Again, 
it  bases  infant-baptism  on  the  spiritual  condition 
of  the  infant  itself  rather  than  on  some  fictitious 
conception  of  faith,  such  as  the  vicarious  faith 
of  the  parents  or  the  god-parents  or  the  church, 
or  upon  a  ^wa^i-faith  of  the  child  itself,  or  on  a 
faith  to  be  exercised  and  manifested  by  the  child 
in  the  future.  Baptism,  it  is  claimed  by  these 
brethren,  has  no  relation  to  faith  in  any  case, 
but  is  a  ceremonial  recognition  of  the  regenerate 
state  and  divine  sonship  of  the  individual  to  be 
baptized,  that  is,  the  infant. 

This  new  argument  for  infant-baptism  is 
thought  by  its  advocates  to  furnish  a  firmer  basis 
for  their  practice  than  they  have  ever  before  had. 
Evidently  they  feel  relieved,  for  they  attack  the 
old  arguments  for  infant-baptism  and  expose 
their  absurdities  as  vigorously  as  the  anti-pedo- 


The  New  Pelagianism.  129 

baptists  have  ever  done.  Judging  from  their 
writings  one  would  be  compelled  to  conclude  that 
they  have  long  felt  the  inadequacy  of  the  old 
arguments,  and  now,  feeling  themselves  more  se- 
cure on  their  new  basis,  they  rejoice  in  demol- 
ishing the  old  fortifications. 

But  are  they  so  secure  as  they  feel  ?  Will  their 
view  of  child  nature  commend  itself  to  the 
thought  and  experience  of  the  Christian  world? 
And  if  their  conception  of  child  nature  is  cor- 
rect, does  that  warrant  infant-baptism?  Several 
things  are  to  be  noted  in  the  consideration  of 
this  matter. 

In  the  first  place  they  are  reviving  a  view  of 
child  nature  that  was  long  ago  considered  and 
rejected,  a  view  that  is  now  held  by  an  extremely 
small  minority  of  the  Christian  world.  This  by 
no  means  proves  their  contentions  to  be  false, 
but  it  is  a  consideration  which  should  make 
thinking  men  wary  in  accepting  it  without  the 
most  careful  consideration. 

In  the  next  place  it  should  be  noted  that  it  is 
based  on  science  and  sentiment  far  more  than 
on  Scripture  and  religious  experience.  It  is  not 
intended  by  this  remark  to  intimate  any  want  of 
appreciation  of  either  science  or  sentiment.  The 
Christian  world  of  the  present  day  owes  a  great 
debt  of  gratitude  to  science.  It  has  exploded 
many  a  hoary  and  hurtful  superstition  which 
had  long  hampered  spiritual  progress.  Its  con- 
tributions to  a  better  understanding  of  the  reality 


130  Infant-Baptism. 

and  nature  of  Christian  experience  in  recent 
years  are  gratefully  acknowledged.  But  science 
has  its  limitations  which  scientists  do  not  always 
recognize.  And  this  writer  is  disposed  to  think 
child  nature  has  been  one  subject  about  which 
there  has  sometimes  been  more  confident  assertion 
than  real  knowledge.  This  is  said  without  any 
intention  of  disparaging  the  great  benefit  which 
has  accrued  to  religious  workers  through  the  in- 
tense study  which  psychologists  have  devoted  to 
the  child  in  recent  years.  No  man  who  aspires 
to  efficiency  in  Christian  work  can  afford  to  re- 
main unacquainted  with  the  studies  of  these 
scientists.  But  in  declaring  the  infant  to  be  sin- 
less, science  has  gone  beyond  the  possibilities  of 
scientific  knowledge.  There  are  no  instruments 
or  tests  by  which  the  taint  of  sin  can  be  de- 
tected. Doubtless  the  old  Catholic  theology 
made  assertions  concerning  the  sinfulness  of  the 
child  that  were  crude  and  even  gross,  but  the 
rejection  of  these  errors  need  not  drive  us  to 
the  other  extreme.  It  is  fair  to  ask  how  we  are 
to  explain  the  universality  of  sin  in  adults  if  all 
children  or  any  children  are  entirely  free  from 
its  weakening  and  polluting  effects  through 
heredity?  How  explain  the  fact,  known  to  all 
who  have  given  the  matter  attention,  that  earth's 
saintliest  characters  have  as  an  invariable  rule 
been  most  keenly  conscious  of  sin?  How  is  it 
that  of  all  earth's  great  and  good,  Jesus 
alone  shows  no  sense  of  sin  or  unworthiness  ? 


The  New  Pelagianism.  131 

The  new  Pelagianism  must  answer  these  and 
similar  questions  before  their  view  of  child 
nature  can  be  accepted,  no  matter  what  the 
students  of  child  psychology  may  say. 

The  one  passage  of  Scripture  which  is  relied 
on  most  largely — in  fact,  almost  exclusively — is 
the  beautiful  saying  of  Jesus:  "Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God  (heaven),"  Matt.  19:  14;  Mark 
10:  14;  Luke  18:  i6f.  It  is  argued  from  this 
passage  that  the  kingdom  of  God,  here  conceived 
of  as  the  saved,  is  composed  of  infants  and  such 
as  infants,  and  that  therefore  infants  must  be 
sinless  and  proper  subjects  for  baptism.  This 
view  is  apparently  favored  by  the  King  James 
Version,  but  the  true  meaning  is  far  better  ex- 
pressed by  the  American  Standard  Version,  which 
translates  the  passage,  "To  such  belongeth  the 
kingdom  of  God."  The  "kingdom"  does  not 
mean  the  saved,  but  a  body  of  spiritual  riches 
represented  and  embodied  in  Jesus.  These 
riches  are  free  to  all,  children  as  well  as  others, 
who  will  appropriate  them.  The  disciples  did 
not  understand  this  great  truth  and  sought  to 
hinder  the  children  from  intruding  on  the  Mas- 
ter's time  and  attention.  He  rebuked  them  and 
opened  a  way  for  the  children,  declaring  that 
the  kingdom  belonged  to  children  also.  The 
Pelagian  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  cer- 
tainly wrong.  Jesus  is  not  passing  on  the  spir- 
itual condition  of  children,  but  asserting  their 
rigfht  to  freedom  of  access  to  himself  and  to  the 


132  Infant-Baptism. 

riches  of  the  kingdom,  as  they  can  come.  Com- 
pare two  exactly  parallel  passages  in  Matt.  5:  3 
and  10. 

But  it  is  not  intended  to  consider  the  nature 
of  the  child  here  at  any  length.  Our  interest  in 
the  subject  is  the  bearing  of  this  contention  on 
the  practice  and  defense  of  infant-baptism. 

It  should  be  remarked  in  passing  that  the  argu- 
ments for  infant-baptism  advanced  by  the  new 
Pelagians  are  shaky  just  in  so  far  as  their  view 
of  child  nature  is  uncertain.  If  their  view  of 
child  nature  is  false,  the  whole  practice  of  infant- 
baptism  would,  according  to  their  contention,  fall 
to  the  ground,  for  they  reject  all  other  reasons  for 
baptizing  infants  as  wholly  untenable. 

Several  other  considerations  adverse  to  this 
new  Pelagianism  force  themselves  on  our  atten- 
tion. In  the  first  place,  they  have,  in  order  to 
include  infant-baptism  in  their  "one  baptism," 
wrenched  adult  baptism  from  its  biblical  relation 
to  faith  and  declared  that  a  state  of  grace  and  not 
the  exercise  of  faith  is  the  prerequisite  of  bap- 
tism. It  was  plainly  necessary  to  do  something 
of  this  kind  if  they  were  to  hold  that  there  is  but 
"one  baptism."  Infant-baptism  is  not  a  faith- 
baptism;  therefore  it  became  necessary  to  deny 
that  adult-baptism  is  a  faith-baptism.  The  older 
theologians,  in  order  to  preserve  the  semblance 
of  "one  baptism,"  assumed  some  kind  of  faith  in 
the  infant;  these  new  theologians,  in  order  to 
preserve   "one  baptism,"   have   denied   faith  as 


The  New  Pelagianism.  I33 

the  basis  of  adult-baptism.  An  assumed  state  of 
grace,  identical  in  newly  born  infants  and  in  saved 
adults,  is  the  basis  of  baptism  according  to  them. 
It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  this 
contention  is  absolutely  without  Scripture  war- 
rant. The  Bible  everywhere  couples  faith  with 
baptism,  everywhere  makes  faith  a  condition  of 
baptism.  The  attempt  to  deny  or  obscure  this 
fact  constitutes  an  inexcusable  perversion  of 
Scripture  teaching.  It  is  more  objectionable 
and  less  justifiable,  if  possible,  than  the  old  as- 
sumption of  a  quasi-idiith  in  the  infant.  The 
older  defenders  of  infant-baptism  departed  from 
Scripture  teaching  less  than  these. 

In  the  second  place  this  infant-baptism  nulli- 
fies faith-baptism  just  as  much  as  the  old  infant- 
baptism  did.  Many  of  its  advocates  frankly 
admit  that  it  is  not  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
Dr.  Wright  says :  'The  New  Testament  is  si- 
lent concerning  it,"  and  explains  its  origin  as 
follows:  "The  custom  of  children's  baptism 
probably  had  its  roots  in  Jewish  traditions  and 
practices,  and  the  fear  that  unbaptized  persons 
would  be  excluded  from  the  kingdom  forever,  in 
harmony  with  the  well-nigh  unchallenged  phrase, 
extra  ecclesiam  nulla  sahis/'*  Notwithstanding 
this  silence  of  the  Scriptures  this  baptism  is  made 
to  nullify  the  plain  command  of  Scripture  that 
every  believer  should  be  baptized,  for  no  pedo- 

*Wright,  Moral  Condition  and  Development  of  the 
Child,  pp.  i63f. 


J^34  Infant-Baptism. 

baptist  would  think  of  administering  a  faith-bap- 
tism to  a  person  who  had  been  baptized  in  in- 
fancy. Faith-baptism  is  just  as  much  destroyed 
by  this  as  by  any  other  reason  for  infant-bap- 
tism. 

In  the  next  place  this  view  of  infant-baptism 
does  not  differ  so  widely  from  the  old  magical 
conception  of  baptism  as  at  first  appears. 
It  is  true  that  these  brethren  reject  with 
the  utmost  decision  all  the  older  concep- 
tions of  infant-baptism.  In  fact,  they  are 
as  severe  as  any  anti-pedobaptist  could  pos- 
sibly be.  Dr.  Wright  admits  "that  it  is  little 
wonder  that  a  custom  that  has  been  defended 
by  an  appeal  to  such  absurdities  and  unfounded 
necessities,  by  such  conflicting  arguments  and 
disregard  of  personal  history,  should  fail  of  gen- 
eral acceptance  and  understanding."*  He  adds 
that  "there  are  certain  conceptions  of  infant  bap- 
tism that  appear  to  us  as  little  better  than  gross 
superstition  on  the  one  hand,  or  based  on  imag- 
inary necessities  on  the  other.  They  dwell  in 
the  region  of  mystical  relations  and  imaginary 
benefits.  It  is  impossible  to  trace  the  moral 
benefit  to  children,  in  their  actual  lives."** 

Dr.  McFarland  is  even  severer  on  former  and 
present-day  Methodist  practice  than  any  Baptist 
would  dare  to  be.     He  says,  "The  truth  is,  we 

*Wright,  Moral  Condition  and  Development  of  the 
Child,  p.  167. 

**Wright,  Moral  Condition  and  Development  of  the 
Child,  p.  169. 


The  New  Pelagianism.  \25 

have  been  grossly  inconsistent  in  our  practices. 
We  have  baptized  our  children,  and  by  that  act 
we  have  declared  them  to  be  the  children  of  God 
and  as  belonging  to  the  kingdom,  and  then  forth- 
with we  have  proceeded  to  deal  with  them  as  if 
the  implications  of  this  baptism  were  false.  In- 
deed we  have  not  taken  seriously  our  own  prac- 
tice of  baptizing  children.  .  .  .  Either  we 
should  abandon  the  habit  of  baptizing  children,  or 
we  should  assume  frankly  the  responsibility 
which  such  baptism  implies." 

Baptists  have  long  recognized  something  of 
the  inconsistencies  and  absurdities  into  which 
our  pedobaptist  brethren  are  wont  to  fall,  and 
they  can  but  rejoice  to  observe  the  growing  con- 
sciousness of  these  conditions  among  the  pedo- 
baptists  themselves.  Baptists  can  even  welcome 
these  Pelagians  as  colaborers  in  so  far  as  they 
assist  in  unmasking  and  opposing  these  weak- 
nesses and  other  objectionable  features  of  the 
older  pedobaptism.  But  the  objections  to  this 
new  Pelagianism  are  no  less  serious  than  to  the 
old  pedobaptism.  It  has  the  appearance  of  far 
greater  spirituality  than  the  old  magical  view  of 
infant-baptism,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  two 
views  which  seem  to  be  at  the  opposite  poles  of 
theological  thought  are  separated  but  by  a  hair's 
breadth.  It  is  another  case  where  extremes  meet. 
The  Catholic  regards  the  child  as  sinful  at  birth, 
believes  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  are  ap- 
plied to  it  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  baptism;  it  is 


136  Infant-Baptism. 

then  believed  to  be  regenerate  and  henceforth  to 
need  only  careful  training  for  its  eternal  safety. 
The  new  Pelagian  regards  the  newborn  child  as 
sinless  by  nature,  or  regenerate  and  in  a  state  of 
grace  by  virtue  of  Christ's  death ;  for  this  reason 
he  is  to  be  baptized  and  for  the  future  needs  only 
to  be  carefully  trained  to  be  secure  of  eternal  life. 
As  in  the  case  of  the  Catholic  child,  the  whole 
stupendous  transaction  took  place  in  the  moral 
unconsciousness  of  infancy;  the  recipient  will 
know  nothing  of  the  experience  except  as  it  is 
told  him  in  later  years.  The  day  after  baptism 
the  two  children  are  supposed  to  be  in  the  same 
state :  both  are  regarded  as  regenerate,  baptized, 
in  the  kingdom,  in  a  state  of  grace,  in  the  church. 
The  only  difference  is  as  to  the  time  of  the 
supposed  act  of  regeneration.  It  is  the  differ- 
ence between  tweedle-dum  and  tweedle-dee.  It 
is  supposed  that  neither  will  need  conversion  in 
the  future,  both  are  to  be  taught  that  they  are 
children  of  God  and  instructed  accordingly;  any 
future  religious  experience  must  be  regarded  as 
only  *'an  awakening"  and  in  no  sense  an  experi- 
ence necessary  to  salvation.  One  child  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  regenerated  in  unconscious- 
ness before  baptism,  the  other  in  unconsciousness 
in  baptism.  Can  any  one  assert  that  either  case 
is  less  magical  and  irrational  than  the  other? 
Obviously  both  systems  are  anti-evangelical,  be- 
cause both  reject  the  idea  of  conversion  as  a 
fruit   of    the    conscious    apprehension    of   Jesus 


The  New  Pelagianism.  137 

Christ  as  Saviour  and  Lord,  both  nullify  the 
gospel  except  for  those  unfortunates  who  be- 
cause of  their  own  perversity  or  the  criminal 
neglect  of  those  who  had  the  oversight  over  them 
have  fallen  out  of  the  kingdom.  It  is  too  soon 
to  learn  by  actual  test  of  experience  what  the 
effect  of  these  views  will  be  on  evangelical  re- 
ligion, but  there  is  great  reason  for  fear  that  it 
will  be  seriously  hurtful.  Salvation  by  grace 
through  faith  is  eliminated  in  ideal  if  not  in  fact; 
repentance  and  faith  lose  all  relation  to  justifica- 
tion, become  unnecessary  and  are  well-nigh 
meaningless ;  conversion,  an  anachronism.  Dr. 
McFarland  says,  "Conversion  is  necessary  only  to  / 
those  who  have  fallen  away  from  God  through 
voluntary  sin,  .  .  .  We  have  fallen  into  the 
error  of  regarding  certain  experiences  which 
come  naturally  to  children  in  their  moral  and 
spiritual  development  as  conversion,  when  in 
reality  it  is  only  what  may  be  called  'the  spiritual 
awakening'  that  is  a  necessary  incident  to  the 
spiritual  Hfe,  when  that  which  lies  latent  and  un- 
defined in  the  mind  becomes  active  and  definite.'* 
This  statement,  made  by  one  of  the  leaders  of  a 
great  evangelical  denomination,  would  be  entirely 
acceptable  to  any  of  the  ritualistic  churches  which 
believe  in  sacramental  salvation.  Even  the  ter- 
minology is  borrowed  from  them.  The  entire 
booklet  of  Dr.  McFarland  deprecates  the  idea  of 
the  necessity  of  conversion  for  those  who  have 
been  baptized  in  infancy  and  properly  trained  as 
they  grew  to  maturity. 


138  Infant-Baptism. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  Baptists  and  even 
evangeUcal  pedobaptists  these  views  are  much 
more  dangerous  and  objectionable  than  the  older 
contention  of  evangelical  pedobaptists.  For  how- 
ever ambiguous  the  status  of  the  baptized  infant 
might  be  among  them,  it  was  maintained  that  it 
must  be  converted  on  coming  to  years  as  if  it 
had  not  been  baptized.  This  inconsistency  in  the 
older  pedobaptism  saved  its  evangelical  truth 
and  made  it  minister  the  gospel  to  all  not- 
withstanding its  infant-baptism.  This  new  Pela- 
gianism  in  its  consistency  has  ceased  to  be  evan- 
gelical. If  these  views  are  widely  accepted,  the 
gradual  cooling  of  evangelical  fervor  and  evan- 
gelistic activity  among  the  evangelical  pedobap- 
tists may  be  confidently  expected.  In  seeking  to 
escape  the  absurdities  and  inconsistencies  of  in- 
fant-baptism the  new  Pelagians  have  fallen  into 
its  most  serious  dangers.  No  friend  of  evan- 
gelical religion  can  anticipate  the  practical  re- 
sults without  the  gravest  concern  for  the  future. 

It  ought  to  be  said  in  conclusion,  perhaps,  that 
this  controversy  over  the  nature  of  the  child  in 
no  way  affects  the  Baptist  view  of  baptism.  To 
them  baptism  is  faith-baptism.  It  is  not  a  means 
by  which  parents  are  to  dedicate  their  children 
unto  God,  nor  is  it  a  mark  of  innocence  or  sin- 
lessness,  but  a  God-given  means  of  public  self- 
dedication.  Repentance  and  faith  are  presup- 
posed because  no  soul  can  dedicate  itself  unto 
God  without  the  exercise  of  these  graces. 


The  New  Pelagianism.  139 

It  ought  to  be  said  further  that  Baptists  do  not 
minimize  the  importance  of  religious  training  of 
children  in  the  home  and  the  church ;  they  believe 
parents  should  dedicate  their  children  unto  God 
and  train  them  carefully  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nition of  the  Lord.  They  feel  that  they  can 
without  immodesty  claim  that  their  actions  con- 
firm these  statements.  Their  Sunday  schools 
are  not  behind  those  of  their  neighbors  either  in 
attendance  or  efficiency,  their  ministers  are  as 
wide-awake  and  as  progressive  as  any,  their 
seminaries  among  the  most  efficient  in  training 
leaders  for  the  religious  and  moral  education  of 
the  childhood  and  the  youth  of  the  country,  their 
teacher-training  work  is  well  developed  and  effi- 
cient. Nor  do  they  believe  that  their  homes  are 
less  the  abodes  of  piety  and  religious  devotion 
than  those  of  their  pedobaptist  neighbors;  they 
do  not  see  that  any  larger  part  of  their  children 
show  indifference  to  religion  than  of  their  neigh- 
bors. In  a  word,  they  believe  that  infant-bap- 
tism on  the  new  Pelagian  basis  is  just  as  devoid 
of  scriptural  warrant,  just  as  futile  in  its  prac- 
tical effects,  just  as  dangerous  to  spiritual  re- 
ligion, just  as  objectionable  from  every  point  of 
view  as  that  which  was  grounded  on  the  sinful- 
ness of  the  child.  Their  practice  of  faith-bap- 
tism enables  them  to  consider  with  perfect  free- 
dom and  frankness  the  spiritual  condition  of  the 
child.  This  baptism  is  the  barrier  to  endless 
errors  and  the  assurance  of  the  preservation  of 
evangelical  faith. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


FORCES  OPERATING  IN  FAVOR  OF 
FAITH-BAPTISM. 


What  are  some  of  the  causes  of  these  great 
changes  which  the  nineteenth  century  wrought  in 
the  standing  and  prosperity  of  the  anti-pedobap- 
tist  movement?  Doubtless  there  is  much  which 
cannot  be  explained,  but  some  forces  can  be  in- 
dicated. Among  these  the  tremendous  revival  in 
Bible  study  should  be  put  first.  The  Reforma- 
tion rescued  the  Bible  from  the  neglect  and  sus- 
picion from  which  it  suffered  in  the  Catholic 
church,  and  gave  it  again  to  the  people  in  their 
own  language.  But  its  full  effects  were  in  part 
nullified  by  defects  in  translation,  by  the  illiteracy 
of  the  people,  most  of  whom  could  not  read,  and 
by  the  fact  that  the  churches  used  catechisms  in 
the  religious  instruction  of  the  people  rather  than 
the  Bible  itself.  These  catechisms  presented  the 
peculiar  views  of  the  churches  which  issued  them 
and  prevented  the  Bible  from  exerting  its  whole 
influence  upon  the  people,  except  as  some  of  them 
read  it  for  themselves.  Even  the  Protestant 
churches  made  no  effort  to  teach  the  Bible  directly 
and  in  its  entirety  to  the  people.  But  nothwith- 
standing  this  serious  defect  in  the  religious  in- 
struction of  the  people  at  the  period  of  the  Re- 

(140) 


Forces  for  Faith-Baptism.  141 

formation  there  was,  as  we  have  seen  above,  a 
tremendous  outburst  of  anti-pedobaptist  senti- 
ment which  could  be  quenched  only  in  blood. 

Again  in  the  seventeenth  century,  especially  in 
England,  there  was  a  renewed  effort  to  give  the 
Bible  to  all  the  people,  with  a  corresponding  re- 
vival of  anti-pedobaptist  sentiment.  It  is  a  no- 
table fact  that  English  Baptists  issued  their  first 
Confession  of  Faith  in  the  year  1611,  the  year  in 
which  the  King  Tames  Version,  the  great  English 
vulgate,  came  from  the  press.  Just  in  proportion 
as  the  use  of  that  book,  translated  wholly  by  pedo- 
baptist  scholars,  spread  among  the  people  Baptist 
sentiment  grew. 

But  it  was  in  the  nineteenth  century  that  the 
glory  of  biblical  scholarship  reached  its  full  bloom. 
Bible  lands  were  explored,  Bible  customs  inves- 
tigated on  the  spot,  Bible  languages  studied  in- 
tensively, biblical  manuscripts  were  discovered 
and  collated,  Bible  versions  revised  and  new 
translations  made  in  nearly  all  the  languages  of 
the  earth.  Human  learning  and  ability  have  ex- 
hausted all  their  resources  in  elucidating  the  Bi- 
ble text  and  teachings  through  commentaries, 
lives  of  Christ  and  the  great  scriptural  characters 
and  in  the  study  of  every  phase  of  scriptural 
teaching. 

At  the  same  time  the  modern  Sunday  school 
movement  came  on,  using  the  Bible  as  its  text- 
book in  the  religious  education  of  the  people.  Be- 
ginning with  instruction  of  the  small  children 
only,  it  has  gradually  enlarged  its  scope  until  it 


142  Infant-Baptism. 

now  affects  the  lives  of  multitudes  through  the 
direct  study  of  the  Bible  from  the  cradle  to  the 
grave.  This  has  been  supplemented  by  the  pop- 
ular study  of  the  Bible  in  numerous  other  ways, 
such  as  through  the  Young  Men's  and  Young 
Women's  Christian  Associations,  Chautauquas, 
Institutes,  etc.  All  this  has  prepared  the  soil  for 
the  spread  of  anti-pedobaptist  sentiments,  by  pre- 
senting positively  and  directly  the  Scripture  teach- 
ing on  baptism.  Sometimes,  no  doubt,  pedobap- 
tist  laymen  have  been  perplexed  when  they  have 
sought  Scripture  warrant  for  the  practice  of  in- 
fant-baptism. When  they  have  investigated  they 
have  been  forced  to  see  that  all  Scripture  bap- 
tisms were  faith-baptisms.  But  the  most  impor- 
tant result  has  been  the  gradual  melting  away  of 
the  most  baneful  effects  of  infant-baptism  in  pedo- 
baptist  churches  in  this  warm  current  of  Scrip- 
ture study. 

A  second  force,  already  hinted  at,  which  has 
greatly  strengthened  the  anti-pedobaptist  move- 
ment is  the  general  diffusion  of  enlightenment. 
The  public  school  has  come,  the  masses  have  been 
made  literate,  they  can  read  the  Bible  for  them- 
selves, superstitious  reverence  for  the  Church  and 
ecclesiastical  institutions  has  been  waning.  In- 
fant-baptism has  flourished  where  the  people  took 
their  religious  instruction  wholly  from  the  Church. 
Enlightenment  and  personal  independence  mili- 
tate against  infant-baptism.  It  is  administered  in 
the  ignorance  and  helplessness  of  infancy,  faith- 
baptism  is  possible  only  where  there  is  intelli- 
gence and  self-direction. 


Forces  for  Faith-Baptism.  I43 

A  third  world  movement  which  has  greatly 
weakened  the  position  of  infant-baptism  is  the 
gradual  attainment  of  political  and  religious  free- 
dom. The  practical  triumph  of  infant-baptism 
in  the  Middle  Ages  was  largely  based  on  force. 
The  indifference  of  free  men,  if  not  their  active 
opposition,  would  have  prevented  the  practical 
universality  of  the  practice.  But  they  were  forced 
to  have  their  children  baptized  by  the  anathemas 
of  the  Church  and  the  more  concrete  threats  of 
the  State.  But  the  eighteenth  century  saw  the 
beginning  of  the  establishment  of  religious  free- 
dom. At  first  in  the  United  States  and  then  grad- 
ually in  other  lands  a  man  was  left  to  determine 
his  religious  actions  for  himself.  If  he  desired 
to  have  his  child  baptized  he  could  do  so,  but  if 
he  objected  on  religious  or  other  grounds,  or  if 
he  were  merely  indifferent,  the  child  went  unbap- 
tized.  The  immediate  result  has  been  that  the 
great  majority  of  the  children  in  the  United 
States,  notwithstanding  all  the  pressure  which  the 
great  pedobaptlst  churches  can  exert,  are  grow- 
ing up  unbaptized.  They  enjoy  the  privilege  of 
deciding  for  themselves  what  their  religious  status 
shall  be.  Very  many  of  them  on  conversion  join 
pedobaptlst  churches,  but  they  usually  become, 
because  of  their  own  experience,  an  anti-pedobap- 
tlst  or  non-pedobaptlst  leaven  working  in  the 
pedobaptlst  communion.  The  practical  result  is 
that  some  of  the  pedobaptlst  churches  in  certain 
sections  of  our  country  have  become  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes  the  administrators  of  faith- 


144  Infant-Baptism. 

baptisms  only.  There  are  sections  where  the  bap- 
tism of  an  infant  has  not  occurred  in  years,  and 
the  entire  practice  has  simply  fallen  into  "inocu- 
ous  desuetude."  This  will  be  more  and  more  the 
case  as  religious  freedom  spreads  and  deepens. 
No  man  who  baptizes  an  infant  is  in  favor  of  re- 
ligious freedom  in  the  fullest  sense.  Proper  rev- 
erence for  personality  will  inevitably  cause  the 
discontinuance  of  infant-baptism.  The  onus 
probandi,  the  burden  of  proof,  rests  in  our  coun- 
try on  the  pedobaptist,  not  on  the  advocate  of 
faith-baptism.  The  political,  cultural  and  religious 
forces  of  the  modern  world  are  fighting  against 
pedobaptism.  Pedobaptism  is  declining  in  an 
exact  but  inverse  ratio  to  the  growth  of  freedom. 
Faith-baptism  is  the  baptism  of  freedom,  of  per- 
sonal responsibility,  of  religious  experience. 

The  unparalleled  evangelical  revival  of  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  has  been  one 
of  the  mightiest  factors  in  the  decline  of  infant- 
baptism.  The  essence  of  the  Protestant  position 
is  justification  by  faith.  This  faith  is  not  the 
antithesis  of  "works,"  in  the  sense  that  it  was 
frequently  and  erroneously  preached,  but  of  ec- 
clesiastical "works."  Men  are  justified  by  faith 
apart  from  ecclesiastical  ceremonies.  This  was 
the  paramount  contention  of  Luther  and  his  fol- 
lowers. And  yet  Luther,  as  has  been  shown 
above,  retained  baptism  as  a  regenerating  sacra- 
ment of  the  Church.  Naturally  infant-baptism 
was  retained,  though  it  contradicted  his  central 
contention.    The  English  Church  stood  in  prac- 


Forces  for  Faith-Baptism.  145 

tical  agreement  with  him  on  this  point  when  the 
work  of  reform  was  complete.  Other  reformers 
were  less  sacramental  in  theory,  but  still  retained 
infant-baptism,  though  in  its  origin,  history  and 
primary  significance  it  was  distinctly  sacramental 
and  anti-evangelical. 

Naturally  whatever  emphasizes  the  great  gos- 
pel truth  that  salvation  is  the  fruit  of  the  repent- 
ance and  faith  of  the  individual  must  work  to  the 
discrediting  of  infant-baptism.  If  the  Christian  re- 
ligion is  an  experience  of  grace,  then  infant-bap- 
tism is  no  part  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  was  just 
here  that  the  evangelical  revival  of  the  eighteenth 
century  laid  its  chief  emphasis.  Everything  was 
subordinate  to  a  personal  experience  of  grace. 
Assurance  of  salvation  was  based,  not  on  the 
church  and  sacraments,  but  on  faith  and  perse- 
verance. By  the  end  of  the  century  this  truth 
was  widely  operative  in  England  and  America. 
With  its  spread  the  Baptist  cause  sprang  into 
power.  The  two  have  continued  to  flourish  to- 
gether throughout  the  last  century  and  a  quar- 
ter. Every  local  revival  has  given  a  new  stimu- 
lus to  anti-pedobaptist  sentiment  and  non-pedo- 
baptist  practice  even  where  it  has  not  contributed 
largely  to  the  growth  of  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion. Infant-baptism  has  many  supports — the 
faith  of  the  parents,  social  custom,  the  compulsion 
of  the  state,  the  pressure  of  the  church.  Faith- 
baptism  rests  wholly  on  the  faith  and  desire  of  the 
individual  for  baptism.  Where  there  is  no  faith 
there  will  be  no  faith-baptism.    Consequently  the 

10 


146  Infant-Baptism. 

success  of  the  Baptist  movement  is  absolutely  de- 
pendent on  the  success  of  evangelical  religion 
which  preaches  justification  by  faith,  and  an 
evangelical  revival  is  uniformly  a  revival  of  anti- 
pedobaptist  sentiment,  and  of  prosperity  for  the 
Baptists. 

The  fifth  great  movement  of  the  period  which 
has  materially  influenced  the  question  of  infant- 
baptism  is  the  foreign  missionary  movement. 
Everybody  recognizes  that  Christianity  was  orig- 
inally a  missionary  religion,  differing  in  this  re- 
gard from  nearly  all  the  other  religions.  Its 
Founder  sets  as  its  task  the  complete  conquest 
of  the  world.  The  truths  which  he  revealed  were 
to  be  presented  to  the  intelligence  and  consciences 
of  all  men  who  on  accepting  the  position  of  dis- 
cipleship  were  to  be  baptized  and  further  in- 
structed in  the  life  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
This  is  the  teaching  and  the  only  teaching  found 
in  the  Christian  program  as  set  forth  in  the  last 
charge  of  Jesus  known  as  the  Commission.  Each 
must  become  a  Christian  and  live  the  Christian 
life  for  himself,  irrespective  of  the  nationality  or 
religious  status  of  his  parents. 

But  as  time  passed  and  the  distinctive  charac- 
ter of  Christianity  became  obscured  there  arose 
a  feeling  that  a  child  was  in  some  sense  a  Chris- 
tian if  his  parents  were  Christians,  just  as  a  Jew- 
ish child  was  religiously  as  well  as  racially  a  Jew 
because  his  parents  were  Jews.  Men  began  to 
speak  of  Christian  families.  Christian  nations  and 
a  Christian  society.    These  conceptions  obscured 


Forces  for  Faith-Baptism.  147 

the  missionary  character  of  Christianity.  But  the 
original  fundamental  character  of  Christianity  has 
been  re-emphasized  and  brought  into  prominence 
by  the  modern  missionary  movement.  Again  men 
and  women  have  gone  forth,  armed  with  the  gos- 
pel, to  preach  and  to  baptize  those  that  believe. 
The  baptism  of  the  mission  fields  is  a  faith-bap- 
tism. This  has  reacted  powerfully  at  home.  Lis- 
ten to  the  addresses  in  a  missionary  conference, 
made  by  Baptists  and  pedobaptists,  and  you  will 
find  they  are  all  Baptists  on  missions.  All  speak 
of  preaching,  conversion  and  baptism.  Infant- 
baptism,  which  is  an  absurdity  on  a  mission  field, 
can  hardly  be  entirely  appropriate  or  permanently 
very  important  at  home.  Beyond  question  the 
foreign  mission  movement  has  exerted  consider- 
able influence  on  the  decline  of  infant-baptism  in 
the  home  lands. 

The  extensive  study  of  church  history,  which 
has  been  one  of  the  marked  characteristics  of 
theological  education  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, has  continually  exerted  considerable  influ- 
ence upon  the  ministry.  It  is  true  that  the  pedo- 
baptist  seminaries  as  a  rule  have  loyally  sup- 
ported the  pedobaptist  practices  of  the  churches 
to  which  they  belong.  It  is  also  true  that  it  is 
never  the  ministers  of  religion  who  break  away 
from  the  ecclesiastical  traditions  of  the  commu- 
nion to  which  they  belong.  Individual  ministers 
do,  here  and  there,  emancipate  themselves  from 
"the  traditions  of  the  elders,"  but  it  is  to  the  laity 
we  look  to  get  back  to  essentials.    And  yet  it  must 


148  Infant-Baptism, 

be  exceedingly  embarrassing  to  scholarly  young 
pedobaptist  ministers,  as  they  follow  the  pages 
of  church  history,  to  see  the  total  absence  of  in- 
fant-baptism from  the  pages  of  Scripture,  to  ob- 
serve the  sources  from  which  it  sprang  in  the 
third  and  succeeding  centuries,  to  follow  its  dark 
and  bloody  history  through  the  centuries  of  the 
Middle  Ages  and  down  into  modern  times.  It 
must  be  rather  difficult  for  a  sincere  man  who 
knows  church  history  to  defend  and  administer 
this  ceremony.  Of  course,  not  many  make  any 
thorough  study  of  church  history.  This  is  the 
most  charitable  view  to  take  with  regard  to  their 
actions. 

The  study  of  religious  phychology  is  another 
force  operative  toward  the  establishment  of  faith- 
baptism.  Psychology  is  the  study  of  the  content  of 
consciousness,  religious  psychology  is  an  account 
of  the  content  of  the  religious  consciousness. 
To  psychology  there  is  no  religion  where  there 
is  no  consciousness  of  religion.  Infant  baptism 
is  a  psychological  absurdity.  Religious  psychology 
studies  the  phenomena  of  conversion  and  the 
other  religious  experiences,  thus  lifting  them  into 
prominence  as  the  initial  and  essential  elements 
of  religion.  Naturally  infant-baptism  loses  its 
significance  for  the  religious  life  because  it  is  ad- 
ministered when  the  child  is  religiously  uncon- 
scious. On  the  other  hand,  faith-baptism  receives 
a  powerful  impulse  in  that  it  is  based  upon  a 
religious  experience  and  contributes  to  the 
strengthening  of  the  religious  content  of  the  soul. 


Forces  for  Faith-Baptism.  149 

The  final  reason  for  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism at  all  is  psychological.  Jesus  Christ  knew 
that  man  is  so  constituted  as  to  need  some  exter- 
nal means  by  which  he  can  register  and  express 
his  great  religious  decision.  As  the  fraternal  or- 
ders adopt  some  ceremonies,  made  as  appropriate 
and  expressive  as  possible,  to  emphasize  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  act  of  uniting  with  the  order,  so 
baptism  is  needed  by  men  to  mark  that  great  crisis 
in  life  when  a  soul  deliberately,  solemnly  and 
voluntarily  takes  its  stand  with  God  and  his  peo- 
ple. The  profoundest  realities  of  that  experience 
are  expressed  by  the  immersion  of  the  believer 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  Religious  psychology 
supports  faith-baptism  while  it  renders  infant- 
baptism  irrational  and  nugatory. 

The  fact  that  anti-pedobaptists  have  been  giv- 
ing more  attention  to  the  religious  training  of 
their  children  and  have  been  making  efforts  for 
their  conversion  at  an  earlier  age  than  formerly 
has  deprived  evangelical  pedobaptists  of  a  great 
part  of  the  strength  of  their  appeal.  The  children 
of  Baptist  parents  are  as  well  trained  religiously 
and  are  converted  as  early  in  life  as  those  bap- 
tized in  infancy.  In  pedobaptist  theory  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  brings  them  closer  to  the  spiritual 
treasures  of  the  kingdom;  actually  there  is  no 
evidence  that  it  has  any  effect  on  them  whatever. 
Spiritual  riches  are  just  as  accessible  to  Baptist 
children  as  to  any  other,  and  are  as  early  and 
earnestly  appropriated.  The  religious  character 
of  a  child  baptized  in  infancy  depends  on  its  train- 


150  Infant-Baptism. 

ing  and  its  own  personal  religious  experiences 
precisely  as  that  of  a  child  not  baptized.  There 
is  no  distinction. 

The  great  wave  of  democracy  which  has  swept 
over  the  earth  during  the  last  century  has  con- 
tributed materially  to  the  growth  of  anti-pedo- 
baptist  sentiment.  If  man  has  reached  his  ma- 
jority and  is  capable  of  self-direction  in  all  other 
affairs  of  life,  is  he  still  to  be  a  minor  in  reli- 
gion? Must  he  rely  upon  the  magical  effects  of 
a  ceremony  received  in  infancy,  in  the  highest 
affairs  of  his  soul,  while  life's  other  great  con- 
cerns are  decided  in  the  full  light  of  his  own  con- 
sciousness and  in  accordance  with  the  decisions 
of  his  own  sovereign  will?  Democracy  says,  no. 
The  individual  must  direct  his  own  religious  af- 
fairs; he  must  be  free. 

Finally,  the  great  change  which  has  come  over 
the  belief  of  the  Christian  world  as  to  the  reli- 
gious status  of  the  infant  is  working  a  rapid 
change  in  the  practice  of  infant-baptism.  It  was 
easy  for  men,  especially  for  a  childless  clergy,  in 
the  days  of  Augustine,  to  believe  in  the  damna- 
tion of  infants  who  died  unbaptized.  Today  it  is  in- 
creasingly difficult  for  even  the  Catholic  churches 
to  keep  the  people  believing  such  a  monstrous 
doctrine.  Even  the  milder  doctrine  of  a  limbo 
for  infants  dying  unbaptized  shocks  the  faith  of 
many  Catholics.  We  now  believe  the  helpless 
child  is  cared  for  by  the  loving  God  and  is  not 
dependent  on  the  accident  of  receiving  an  ecclesi- 
astical ceremony  before  its  untimely  death. 


Forces  for  Faith-Baptism.  151 

It  was  perhaps  easy  for  the  reformers,  battling 
sternly  for  life  and  relying  on  God  for  every- 
thing, to  believe  that  non-elect  infants  dying  in 
infancy  were  lost.  When  the  English  Arminian 
Baptists  began  in  the  early  seventeenth  century 
to  advocate  the  view  that  all  infants  dying  in  in- 
fancy are  saved  they  were  regarded  as  dangerous 
heretics.  Men  had  been  so  long  schooled  in  the 
feeling  that  the  Church  has  some  kind  of  bless- 
ing for  the  infant,  even  while  it  is  an  infant,  that 
Zwingli  and  Calvin,  notwithstanding  their  evan- 
gelical views,  could  not  break  away.  They  in- 
sisted that  the  child  must  be  baptized  and  thus 
brought  into  the  Church,  else  his  parents  would 
neglect  him  and  his  God  would  forget  him.  He 
would  not  be  in  covenant  relation  with  God.  But 
practical  experience  has  shown  that  this  relation 
to  the  Church  has  no  appreciable  effect  on  the 
child's  life.  That  is  dependent  on  his  native  char- 
acteristics and  the  environment.  Today  the  world 
does  not  believe  that  a  child  must  be  baptized  in 
order  to  be  saved ;  nor  does  it  believe  that  it  must 
be  baptized  to  insure  the  love  and  care  of  its  par- 
ents or  the  gracious  blessing  of  God.  God  comes 
to  the  child  as  a  child,  a  human  being,  not  as  the 
child  of  Christian  parents. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


MODERN  PEDOBAPTIST  SCHOLARSHIP. 


The  indications  are  that  the  Baptist  conten- 
tion concerning  the  unscriptural  character  and  the 
ecclesiastical  origin  of  infant-baptism  will  soon 
be  as  completely  vindicated  and  as  widely  ac- 
cepted by  the  scholarly  world  as  their  position  on 
the  scriptural  form  or  mode  of  baptism.  It  is 
now  a  common-place  of  biblical  scholarship  that 
baptism  was  administered  solely  by  immersion  in 
New  Testament  times,  acknowledged  alike  by  the 
untrammeled  scholars  of  all  communions.  The 
same  tendency  is  manifest  with  regard  to  infani- 
baptism.  English  and  German  scholars  have  in 
recent  years  frankly  acknowledged  that  tliere  is 
no  warrant  for  infant-baptism  in  the  way  of  com- 
mand or  example  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  it 
did  not  appear  in  Christian  history  much  before 
the  end  of  the  second  century.  American  pedo- 
baptist  scholars  are  timidly  beginning  to  show  the 
same  tendency,  though  they  are  much  more  ham- 
pered by  ecclesiastical  ties  than  their  European 
brethren.  It  will  not  be  long  before  all  real  schol- 
ars who  are  not  bound  by  ecclesiastical  traditions 
or  other  ties  will  openly  and  frankly  acknowledge 
the  facts  that  are  so  patent  to  anti-  and  non-pedo- 
baptists.    This  does  not  mean  that  they  will  aban- 

(152) 


Modern  Pedohaptist  Scholarship.  153 

don  infant-baptism,  at  least  not  at  once ;  it  means 
that  they  will  defend  the  practice  on  other  than 
scriptural  grounds. 

A  few  quotations  from  some  of  the  leading 
pedohaptist  scholars  of  the  world  will  serve  to 
indicate  the  direction  of  the  tide. 

The  Rev.  George  Hodges,  dean  of  the  Episco- 
pal Theological  School,  Cambridge,  Massachu- 
setts, is  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  representative 
members  of  his  communion.  In  a  recent  volume 
on  "The  Episcopal  Church,  Its  Faith  and  Order," 
he  says  (page  51)  in  his  discussion  of  baptism: 
'The  recipients  of  baptism  seem  originally  to 
have  been  persons  of  mature  life.  The  command, 
*Go,  teach  all  nations,  and  baptize  them,'  and  the 
two  conditions,  'Repent  and  be  baptized,'  and  *He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,'  indicate  adults." 

This  is  a  brief  but  succinct  statement  of  the 
Baptist  position,  the  grounds  on  which  they  re- 
fuse to  practice  and  actively  oppose  infant-bap- 
tism. But  Dean  Hodges,  notwithstanding  the 
above  statement,  continues  to  practice  and  approve 
infant-baptism.  Let  us  see  on  what  grounds.  He 
continues :  "At  the  same  time,  the  admission  of 
children  into  the  Jewish  church  might  be  taken 
by  the  Christians  as  a  precedent  for  their  own 
use.  The  baptizing  of  households  by  the  apostles 
seems  to  suggest  the  inclusion  of  children.  A 
few  statements  in  very  early  Christian  writings 
indicate  that  children  were  baptized"  (page  51). 
Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Origen  and  Cyprian  are 
mentioned,  and  he  proceeds  :    "The  fact,  however, 


154  Infant-Baptism, 

that  various  eminent  Christians  of  the  fourth 
century  were  not  baptized  in  infancy  suggests 
that  adult  baptism  was  the  common  rule.  Bap- 
tism was  delayed  until  it  was  possible  to  fulfill 
the  conditions  of  repentance  and  faith.  .  .  . 
The  postponement  of  baptism  ceased  to  be  a  cus- 
tom in  the  church  by  reason  of  an  understanding 
of  its  meaning  as  a  sacrament  of  regeneration. 
St.  Augustine  taught  that  every  infant  is  born 
under  the  curse  of  original  sin,  and  cannot,  with- 
out the  new  birth  of  baptism,  enter  into  fullness 
of  Hfe.  This  doctrine  which  populated  hell  with 
infants  'not  a  span  long,'  was  easily  applied  by 
a  childless  clergy  to  other  people's  children.  .  .  . 
It  frightened  people  into  the  baptizing  of  their 
infant  children." 

In  these  words  Dean  Hodges  has  stated  the 
facts  exactly.  He  does  not  claim  scriptural  war- 
rant, even  by  clear  implication,  for  infant-bap- 
tism; he  admits  that  it  first  appears  at  the  end 
of  the  second  century  and  was  finally  made  gen- 
eral by  the  theology  of  Augustine  in  the  fifth 
century.  Anti-pedobaptist  scholars  claim  no  more 
than  the  substance  of  these  statements.  Continu- 
ing, he  gives  the  positive  grounds  on  which  he 
supports  the  practice.  He  says  (page  53)  :  "But 
the  baptizing  of  children  ...  is  a  true  deduc- 
tion from  the  meaning  of  the  sacrament.  The 
Christian  father  was  initiated  into  the  Christian 
society,  and  the  Christian  mother  was  initiated 
with  him,  and  they  were  not  willing  to  leave  the 
little  boys  and  girls  outside;  that  is  the  heart  of 


Modern  Pedobaptist  Scholarship.  I55 

it.  Some  theologians  said  this,  and  other  theolo- 
gians said  that  .  .  .  but  parents  brought  their 
children,  in  happy  ignorance  of  the  teachings  of 
these  relentless  logicians,  being  moved  thereto  by 
natural  human  affection.  It  is  the  revelation  of 
the  will  of  God  not  in  a  book,  nor  in  a  doctrine, 
but  in  the  heart,  which  maintains  the  baptism  of 
infants  in  the  life  of  the  church." 

Here  is  a  perfectly  frank  statement  of  the 
secret  of  the  power  of  infant-baptism.  Doubtless 
most  pedobaptists  believe  the  Bible  affords 
warrant  for  the  practice  of  infant-baptism,  but 
this  belief  is  not  the  mainspring  of  their  desire 
for  the  baptism  of  their  children.  This  is  human 
affection,  misguided  as  to  the  religious  status  of 
their  children  and  the  place  of  baptism  in  the 
work  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Between  the  anti- 
pedobaptists  and  Dean  Hodges  there  is  no  con- 
troversy as  to  facts.  Fundamentally  that  differ- 
ence is  as  to  whether  human  sentiment,  misin- 
formed and  misguided  as  anti-pedobaptists  be- 
lieve, shall  override  and  nullify  the  clear  teaching 
of  Scripture  on  so  important  a  matter  as  the  reci- 
pient of  baptism ;  for  that  infant-baptism  nullifies 
faith-baptism  is  indisputable. 

The  great  Cyclopedias  usually  summarize  the 
views  of  current  scholarship  very  accurately,  and 
as  works  of  reference  they  are  of  great  influence. 

The  treatment  of  baptism  in  Vol.  H  of  the 
"Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,"  edited 
b)  James  Hastings,  is  in  accord  with  the  state- 
ments and  views  expressed  above.     This  is  the 


156  Infant-Baptism. 

latest,  largest  and  certainly  one  of  the  ablest 
works  of  reference  on  religious  themes  ever  pub- 
lished in  any  language.  Baptism  is  treated  by 
Professor  J.  V.  Bartlett,  of  Mansfield  College, 
Oxford ;  Professor  Kirsopp  Lake,  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Leyden,  and  H.  G.  Wood,  lecturer  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge.  Professor  Bartlett 
sa^s  that  adult  baptism  "alone  occupies  attention 
in  the  New  Testament;"  but  he  maintains  that 
th^  ideas  of  the  religious  solidarity  of  the  family 
then  current  among  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  would 
demand  the  baptism  of  infants.  He  thinks  this 
makes  infant-baptism  very  probable,  if  not  certain. 
That  is,  he  infers  the  baptism  of  infants,  not  from 
Scripture,  which  he  admits  to  be  silent  regarding 
it,  but  from  current  religious  ideas  known  to 
exist  outside  the  Christian  fold  and  supposed  by 
him  to  be  operative  among  Christians. 

Professor  Lake  says  flatly,  ''There  is  no  in- 
dication of  the  baptism  of  children"  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  he  finds  the  presence  of  the  prac- 
tice first  in  TertuUian,  who  opposes  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  dangerous  to  both  the  child  and 
the  sponsors. 

Professor  Wood  is  equally  clear.  He  finds  the 
custom  first  in  TertuUian.  He  thinks  it  may  have 
appeared  earlier,  but  says :  "We  are,  as  Harnack 
says,  'in  complete  obscurity  as  to  the  Church's 
adoption  of  the  practice.'  The  clear  third  century 
references  to  child-baptism  interpret  it  in  the  light 
of  original  sin,  and  if  the  adoption  of  the  prac- 
tice is  due  to  this  interpretation,  it  is  almost  cer- 


Modern  Pedohaptist  Scholarship.  157 

tainly  a  late  second  century  development.  .  .  . 
References  to  original  sin  in  Clement  of  Rome  or 
other  writers  earlier  than  Cyprian  cannot  be  held 
to  imply  a  knowledge  of  the  custom  of  infant- 
baptism.  Moreover,  the  idea  that  infants  needed 
to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins  is  con- 
trary to  all  that  is  known  of  early  Christian  feel- 
ing toward  childhood.  .  .  .  Even  in  the  third 
century  infant-baptism  cannot  be  described  as  a 
Church  custom.  That  the  Church  allowed  parents 
to  bring  their  infants  to  be  baptized  is  obvious; 
that  some  teachers  and  bishops  may  have  encour- 
aged them  to  do  so  is  probable,  though  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  TertuUian's  position  was 
peculiarly  his  own.  But  infant-baptism  was  not 
at  this  time  enjoined  or  incorporated  in  the  stand- 
ing orders  of  the  church  ....  In  any  case, 
it  is  probable  that  the  custom  arose  from  the  pres- 
sure of  parents  and  not  through  the  direct  ad- 
vocacy of  the  Church.  .  .  .  The  whole  ritual 
was  designed  for  adults.  The  confession  of  faith 
in  particular  points  to  this;  and  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  institution  of  sponsors  was  a  some- 
what clumsy  device  to  adapt  to  infants  a  cere- 
mony which  had  clearly  been  ordered  at  a  time 
when  their  baptism  was  not  thought  of.  .  .  . 
The  ritual  is  frankly  unsuitable  for  infants,  but 
it  is  retained  because  the  tradition  that  instruc- 
tion and  faith  precede  baptism  is  undeniably  prim- 
itive. .  .  .  Incidentally,  the  evidence  of  the 
ritual  is  against  a  very  early  date  for  the  practice 
of  infant-baptism," 


158  Infant-Baptism. 

Here  is  the  frank  admission  by  three  of  the 
leading  pedobaptist  scholars  of  the  world,  of  the 
facts  as  they  are  seen  by  anti-pedobaptists.  This 
is  the  position  of  the  greatest  religious  cyclope- 
dia in  English. 

Turning  now  to  the  greatest  of  the  German 
cyclopedias,  the  "Real  Encyklopadie  fiir  Protest- 
antiche  Thelogie  und  Kirche,"  3d  edition.  Vol.  19, 
page  403,  we  find  this  crisp,  categorical  statement : 
"The  practice  of  infant-baptism  in  the  apostolic 
and  post-apostolic  age  cannot  be  proved.  We  hear 
indeed  frequently  of  the  baptism  of  entire  house- 
holds, as  in  Acts  16:  15,  32!;  18:  8;  i  Cor.  i :  16. 
But  the  last  passage  taken  with  i.  Cor.  7:  14  is 
not  favorable  to  the  supposition  that  infant-bap- 
tism was  customary  at  that  time.  For  then  Paul 
could  not  have  written  ^else  were  your  children 
unclean.'  "  On  page  408  it  is  said :  "It  is  proven 
that  this  baptism  was  practiced  from  the  time  of 
Irenseus  and  Tertullian.  However  it  had  not  been 
long  practiced  and  certainly  was  not  much  in  use 
at  that  time."  This  great  work  of  reference  thus 
takes  a  position  in  its  statement  of  the  facts  con- 
cerning infant-baptism  in  harmony  with  the  con- 
tention of  anti-pedobaptist  scholars. 

In  the  American  translation  and  revision  of 
this  great  work,  known  as  "The  New  Schaflf- 
Herzog  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge," 
the  article  on  "Infant-baptism"  is  by  Dr.  Philip 
Schaff,  revised  by  his  son,  Professor  D.  S. 
Schaff.    They  maintain  of  course  the  legitimacy 


Modern  Pedobaptist  Scholarship.  I59 

of  the  practice  of  infant-baptism,  but  ground  the 
custom  on  inference,  frankly  admitting  that  "no 
positive  command  for  baptizing  infants  is  given 
by  Christ  or  his  apostles"  and  that  "no  time  can 
be  assigned  for  the  begining  of  the  practice  of  in- 
fant-baptism." As  to  the  first  testimony  to  the 
existence  of  the  practice  they  say,  "The  three 
earliest  witnesses  to  the  prevalence  of  infant- 
baptism  are  Irenaeus,  Origen  and  Tertullian,"  and 
they  admit  that  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  "not 
unequivocal."  This  is  the  position  of  the  great- 
est of  the  American  cyclopedias  of  religious 
knowledge. 

The  greatest  of  all  the  general  cyclopedias, 
"The  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  eleventh  edition," 
in  the  article  on  baptism  by  Dr.  F.  C.  Conybeare, 
takes  the  position  of  anti-pedobaptists  as  to  the 
facts,  without  qualification  or  evasion.  After  stat- 
ing concerning  early  baptism  that  "the  essential 
thing  was  that  a  man  should  come  to  baptism  of 
his  own  free  will,"  and  tracing  the  history  of  the 
rise  of  infant-baptism,  he  concludes  in  these 
words,  which  will  sufficiently  indicate  his  views : 
"On  such  grounds  was  justified  the  transition  of 
a  baptism  which  began  as  a  spontaneous  act  of 
self-consecration  into  an  opus  operatum.  How 
long  after  this  it  was  before  infant-baptism  be- 
came normal  inside  the  Byzantine  church  we  do 
not  know  exactly.  .  .  .  The  change  came  more 
quickly  in  Latin  than  in  Greek  Christendom,  and 
very  slowly  indeed  in  the  Armenian  and  the 
Georgian  churches." 


160  Infaftt-Buptiam. 

Church  historians  are  generally  agreed  that 
there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  for  the  practice 
of  infant-baptism  before  Irenseus  and  Tertullian. 
A  few  quotations  from  the  ablest  of  the  present- 
day  historians  of  the  world  will  make  this  evi- 
dent. 

A.  C.  McGiffert,  professor  of  Church  History 
in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  says  in  his  "His- 
tory of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,"  page 
543 :  "Whether  infants  were  baptized  in  the 
apostolic  age,  we  have  no  means  of  determining. 
Where  the  original  idea  of  baptism  as  a  baptism 
of  repentance,  or  where  Paul's  profound  concep- 
tion of  it  as  a  symbol  of  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  the  believer  with  Christ  prevailed,  the  practice 
would  not  be  likely  to  arise.  But  where  the  rite 
was  regarded  as  a  mere  sign  of  one's  reception 
into  the  Christian  circle,  it  would  be  possible  for 
the  custom  to  grow  up  under  the  influence  of  the 
ancient  idea  of  the  family  as  a  unit  in  religion  as 
in  all  other  matters.  Before  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  at  any  rate,  the  custom  was  common, 
but  it  did  not  become  universal  until  a  much  later 
time."  Professor  McGififert  must  know  that  in- 
fant-baptism was  not  "regarded  as  a  mere  sign 
of  one's  reception  into  the  Christian  circle"  be- 
fore the  Reformation.  It  arose,  as  has  been 
shown,  out  of  a  belief  in  its  sacramental  regenera- 
tive power.  Moreover,  it  is  exceedingly  doubtful 
if  the  "custom  was  common"  before  the  end  of 
the  second  century.  It  was  hardly  a  common  cus- 
tom when  it  first  appears  in  Christian  literature, 


Modern  Pedohaptist  Scholarship.  \Q1 

and  did  not  become  common  before  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. 

The  late  Principal  Robert  Rainy  of  New  Col- 
lege, Edinburgh,  was  a  staunch  Presbyterian 
churchman,  but  in  his  "Ancient  Catholic 
Church"  he  is  constrained  to  admit  all  the  facts 
as  claimed  by  anti-pedobaptists.  In  his  treatment 
of  the  period  98-180  A.D.,  he  says,  page  75 : 
^'Baptism  presupposed  some  Christian  instruction, 
and  was  preceded  by  fasting.  It  signified  the  for- 
giveness of  past  sins,  and  was  the  visible  point 
of  departure  of  the  new  life  under  Christian  in- 
fluences and  with  the  inspiration  of  Christian  pur- 
poses and  aims.  Hence,  it  was  the  'seal'  which 
it  concerned  a  man  to  keep  inviolate." 

Infant-baptism  is  not  mentioned  by  him  in 
treating  this  first  period  of  post-apostolic  history. 
In  dealing  with  the  next  period  (180-313)  he 
says,  page  234 :  "All  through  the  present  period, 
and  a  good  while  after,  the  conspicuous  and  pre- 
vailing type  of  baptism  is  baptism  of  adults. 
That  was  so,  of  course,  at  the  outset,  when  the 
Church  was  busy  gathering  in  her  converts ;  and 
it  still  continues  to  be  so.  Nevertheless,  infant- 
baptism  was  recognized  already  in  the  second  cen- 
tury." He  then  mentions  Irenaeus  and  Tertul- 
lian  as  affording  the  first  evidence  of  its  ex- 
istence. 

Andre  Lagarde,  in  his  "Latin  Church  in  the  Mid- 
dle Ages,"  carrying  the  matter  one  chronological 
step  further  than  Rainy,  says  (page  37)  :  "Until 
the   sixth  century,   infants  were    baptized    only 

11 


162  Infant-Baptism. 

when  they  were  in  danger  of  death.  About  this 
time  the  practice  was  introduced  of  administer- 
ing baptism  even  when  they  were  not  ill.  .  .  . 
After  the  usage  came  the  law.  The  latter  made 
its  appearance  in  England,  where  (691)  an  assem- 
bly presided  over  by  King  Ina  ordered,  under  pen- 
alty of  a  fine,  the  baptism  of  infants  within  thirty 
days  after  their  birth.  From  England  the  law 
passed  into  Frankish  countries.  In  the  assembly 
of  Paderborn  (785)  Charlemagne  commanded 
the  Saxons,  under  penalty  of  a  heavy  fine,  to 
have  their  infants  baptized  during  their  first  year. 
.  .  .  Then,  as  always  happens,  the  law  of  the 
highest  bid  performed  its  work.  In  the  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth  centuries  various  provincial 
councils  decided  that  infants  should  be  baptized 
during  the  first  days  following  their  birth." 

Adolph  Harnack,  of  Berlin,  is  undoubtedly  the 
most  widely  known  church  historian  of  the  world. 
In  his  "History  of  Dogma"  he  necessarily  deals 
at  some  length  with  infant-baptism.  Of  the  post- 
apostolic  era  he  says  (Vol.  I,  page  20,  note  2)  : 
"There  is  no  sure  trace  of  infant-baptism  in  the 
epoch;  personal  faith  is  a  necessary  condition." 
Again,  in  Vol.  II,  page  I42f,  he  says :  "Com- 
plete obscurity  prevails  as  to  the  Church's  adop- 
tion of  the  practice  of  child-baptism,  which, 
though  it  owes  its  origin  to  the  idea  of  this  cere- 
mony being  indispensable  to  salvation,  is  never- 
theless a  proof  that  the  superstitious  view  of  bap- 
tism had  increased.  In  the  time  of  Irenseus 
(II,  22,  4),  and  Tertullian  (de  bapt.  18),  child- 


Modern  Pedobaptist  Scholarship.  16d 

baptism  had  already  become  very  general  and 
was  founded  on  Matthew  19 :  14.  We  have  no 
testimony  regarding  it  from  earlier  times.  .  .  . 
To  all  appearances  the  practice  of  immediately 
baptizing  the  children  of  Christian  families  was 
universally  adopted  in  the  Church  in  the  course 
of  the  third  century."  This  last  statement  is  de- 
cidedly too  sweeping  as  seen  from  evidence  pre- 
sented above.  Harnack  himself  later  modified 
this  statement  as  seen  in  Vol.  IV,  page  284,  where 
he  says  with  much  greater  approach  to  accuracy, 
that  infant-baptism  "was  established  in  the  fifth 
century  as  the  general  usage.  Its  complete  adop- 
tion runs  parallel  with  the  death  of  heathenism." 
He  might  have  added  that  in  its  essence  it  was 
largely  an  absorption  from  heathenism. 

H.  M.  Gwatkin,  professor  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  in  Cambridge  University,  is  one  of  the 
ablest  living  historians.  He  has  dealt  especially 
with  early  church  history.  In  his  * 'Early  Church 
History  to  313,"  Vol.  I,  page  250,  he  says  of  this 
practice :  "We  have  good  evidence  that  infant- 
baptism  is  no  direct  institution  either  of  the  Lord 
himself  or  of  his  apostles.  There  is  no  trace  of 
it  in  the  New  Testament.  Every  discussion  of  the 
subject  presumes  persons  old  enough  to  have  faith 
and  repentance,  and  no  case  of  baptism  is  re- 
corded except  of  such  persons,  for  the  whole 
'households'  mentioned  would  in  that  age  mean 
dependents  and  slaves  as  naturally  as  they  sug- 
gest children  to  the  English  reader.  ...  It 
\s  absurd  to  quote  Mark  10:  14  (*of  such  is  the 


164  Infant-Baptism. 

kingdom  of  God')  or  Acts  2:  39  ('the  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  children')  to  prove  that  the 
practice  existed."  He  thinks,  however,  that  in- 
fant-baptism is  shown  by  these  passages  to  be  in 
accord  with  the  principles  of  Christ's  ordinance, 
and  declares  that  **if  St.  Paul  ( i  Cor.  7 :  14)  dis- 
approves the  institution,  he  approves  its  principle." 

Such  quotations  as  these  could  be  multiplied 
indefinitely.  One  needs  only  to  compare  them 
with  the  position  of  historians  a  century  ago  to 
observe  the  greatness  of  the  change  which  recent 
investigations  have  brought  about  in  learned 
opinion. 

One  of  the  most  striking  evidences  of  the 
changing  convictions  of  pedobaptist  scholars  is 
seen  in  the  treatment  by  commentators  of  those 
passages  which  were  formerly  interpreted  in  sup- 
port of  infant-baptism.  Most  of  the  commenta- 
tors of  the  present  day  are  simply  silent  with  re- 
gard to  infant-baptism  when  they  come  to  con- 
sider these  passages.  Now  and  then  they  stop 
to  point  out  the  fact  that  the  passage  either  has 
no  bearing  on  the  question  of  infant-baptism  or 
militates  against  the  existence  of  the  practice  in 
New  Testament  times.  A  few  quotations  will 
serve  as  examples  to  show  the  general  trend  of 
comment. 

Robertson  and  Plummer,  on  i  Cor.  7 :  14,  a  pas- 
sage long  used  as  one  of  the  strongest  in  support 
of  infant-baptism,  remark  that  Paul  "is  not  as- 
suming that  a  child  of  Christian  parents  would 
be  baptized;  that  would  spoil  rather  than  help 


Modem  Pedohaptist  Scholarship.  I55 

his  argument,  for  it  would  imply  that  the  child 
was  not  'holy'  till  it  was  baptized.  The  verse 
throws  no  light  on  the  question  of  infant-bap- 
tism." The  "Cambridge  Bible"  does  not  men- 
tion infant-baptism  in  treating  the  verse.  It  re- 
marks on  Acts  16:  15,  "We  are  not  justified  in 
concluding  from  these  passages  (on  household 
baptism)  that  infants  were  baptized.  'House- 
hold' might  mean  slaves  and  freedwomen."  It 
calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  members  of  the 
jailer's  "house"  were  "willing  hearers." 


CHAPTER  XV, 


THE  OUTLOOK  FOR  FAITH-BAPTISM. 


After  the  survey  of  the  preceding  pages  it  is 
natural  to  ask  ourselves  concerning  the  outlook 
for  these  two  baptisms — infant-baptism  and  faith- 
baptism — for  the  future. 

It  is,  then,  true  that  the  majority  of  the  nominal 
Christians  of  the  world  still  for  one  reason  or  an- 
other practice  infant-baptism.  But  it  is  also  true 
that  there  has  been  a  vast  growth  of  anti-pedo- 
baptist  sentiment  since  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  A  century  and  a  quarter  ago 
there  were  perhaps  not  more  than  one  hundred 
thousand  anti-pedobaptists  in  the  world,  and  they 
were  nearly  confined  to  England  and  the  United 
States ;  now  there  are  from  eight  to  ten  millions 
organized  into  churches  which  practice  nothing 
but  faith-baptism,  and  they  speak  most  of  the 
languages  of  the  earth.  Then  they  were  unor- 
ganized, destitute  of  culture  and  unsupplied  with 
schools,  poor,  despised  and  without  influence ;  to- 
day they  are  well  organized,  aggressive,  well  sup- 
plied with  good  schools,  with  equal  opportunities 
before  the  law  and  society  in  most  of  the  coun- 
tries of  the  earth.  In  some  countries  like  Russia, 
they  are  still  under  suspicion  and  are  sometimes 
persecuted ;  nor  have  they  outlived  prejudice  even 

(166) 


The  Outlook  for  Faith-Baptism.  \ffj 

in  the  most  enlightened  communities  of  England 
and  America.  The  great  pedobaptist  churches 
enjoying  the  prestige  of  numbers,  distinction, 
wealth  and  power,  often  look  with  disdain,  if  not 
contempt,  upon  the  small  inconspicuous  bands  of 
anti-pedobaptists,  who  cling  to  their  peculiarities 
notwithstanding  the  isolation  and  opprobrium  it 
entails.  Their  beliefs  and  practices  have  neces- 
sarily, made  them  the  aggressors  in  a  continuous 
and  extended  struggle  with  the  pedobaptist 
churches.  They  have  earnestly  opposed  the  union 
between  Church  and  State  and  thus  opposed  the 
supposed  interests  of  the  two  greatest  and  most 
powerful  organizations  of  human  society;  they 
have  attacked  the  whole  conception  of  sacramental 
salvation,  thus  throwing  themselves  into  the  op- 
position against  a  view  which  seems  to  be  a  hu- 
man instinct  and  certainly  is  the  most  widely  dis- 
tributed conception  of  religion;  they  have  con- 
sistently contended  for  the  religious  freedom  of 
the  individual  and  religious  democracy,  a  doc- 
trine which  has  been  and  still  is  widely  regarded 
as  most  dangerous  to  the  stability  of  society  and 
the  welfare  of  the  individual;  they  have  repu- 
diated church  authority  in  every  form  and  in- 
sisted on  scripturalness  as  the  form  of  faith 
and  of  practice,  exciting  thereby  the  charge  of 
being  narrow  literalists ;  they  have  fought  infant- 
baptism  as  the  chief  seat  and  stronghold  of  the 
manifold  corruptions  from  which  Christianity  has 
suffered.  In  a  word,  the  circumstances  have 
steadily  forced  the  anti-pedobaptists  into  the  posi- 
tion of  an  opposition  party. 


168  Infant-Baptism. 

As  seen  by  their  opponents  they  have  in 
some  measure  been  a  negative  and  destructive, 
rather  than  a  positive  constructive  force, 
more  bent  on  the  destruction  of  the  exist- 
ing order  of  things  than  on  building  up  the 
kingdom  of  God.  While  this  appearance  was 
unavoidable  amid  the  conditions  which  met  the 
revival  and  growth  of  the  practice  of  faith-bap- 
tism, still  it  was  very  unfortunate.  It  prevented 
the  pedobaptists  from  understanding  and  properly 
estimating  the  aims  and  eiforts  of  the  anti-pedo- 
baptists,  and  it  sometimes  exercised  a  baneful  in- 
fluence on  the  anti-pedobaptists  themselves.  To 
be  forever  in  the  opposition,  members  of  a  de- 
spised minority,  devoted  primarily  to  destructive 
criticism  of  others,  is  very  trying  on  character. 
It  must  be  confessed  with  sorrow  that  the  anti- 
pedobaptists  have  not  always  been  able  to  escape 
the  dangers  of  their  position.  They  have  not 
always  illustrated  in  their  own  living  those 
traits  of  character  which  Paul  sets  forth 
as  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  have  sometimes 
partially  lost  sight  of  that  great  constructive  aim, 
the  building  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  con- 
stitutes the  ultimate  end  of  all  Christian  effort. 

But  notwithstanding  their  own  shortcomings 
and  defects  and  the  misunderstandings  and  preju- 
dices of  their  opponents  and  all  the  mighty  forces 
of  inertia,  custom,  ecclesiastical  and  state  opposi- 
tion, the  anti-pedobaptists  have  increased  and  in- 
creased rapidly  in  all  the  elements  of  strength, 
since  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century. 


The  Outlook  for  Faith-Baptism.  169 

They  now  have  an  assured  position  which,  it 
seems  unHkely,  they  will  ever  lose.  Indeed,  anti- 
pedobaptism  has  the  best  opportunity  it  has  ever 
enjoyed  since  pedobaptism  was  introduced  into 
the  Christian  church.  Anti-pedobaptists  are  no 
longer  feared  as  anarchists,  dangerous  to  all  social 
order ;  the  religious  fruits  of  their  views  have  been 
tested  by  time  and  are  seen  to  be  beneficent 
rather  than  otherwise;  they  have  taken  up  the 
constructive  attitude  more  and  more  as  their 
strength  increased  and  their  position  became  more 
tolerable,  until  today  they  are  (at  least  among 
English-speaking  peoples)  bearing  a  large  share 
In  all  the  world's  great  moral  and  religious  tasks. 
The  purely  negative,  critical  attitude  is  passing 
from  among  them;  they  are  coming  out  of  their 
isolation  into  the  central  current  of  the  world's 
life;  unjust  and  unreasoning  prejudice  is  passing 
away  even  where  approval  of  their  views  is  with- 
held. 

The  most  obvious  and  striking  fact  is  the  re- 
lative decline  of  infant-baptism  and  the  rapid 
growth  of  faith-baptism  during  the  last  centur>' 
and  a  quarter.  Notwithstanding  its  long  history, 
its  entrenched  position  in  the  social  life  and  the 
ecclesiastical  traditions  of  all  the  so-called  Chris- 
tian nations,  notwithstanding  the  prestige  and 
power  of  the  great  pedobaptist  churches,  notwith- 
standing all  this,  and  more,  infant-baptism  has 
lost  its  grip  on  large  elements  of  society  and  is 
declining.  Hosts  of  people  who  in  times  past 
would  have  been  brought  into  the  church  through 


170  Infant-Baptism. 

infant-baptism  now  stand  outside  all  the 
churches,  while  certain  forms  of  Christianity  like 
the  Quakers,  the  Salvation  Army  and  Christian 
Science  have  abandoned  baptism  altogether;  the 
anti-pedobaptists  are  organized,  active  and  influ- 
ential not  only  in  opposing  infant-baptism  but  in 
administering  and  propagating  faith-baptism, 
while  even  in  the  pedobaptist  churches  themselves 
there  is  a  large  element  which  does  not  believe 
in  and  will  not  practice  infant-baptism.  To  in- 
sist on  it  would  drive  them  out  of  the  church. 
This  progressive  decline  is  found  among  the 
English-speaking  peoples  chiefly,  exactly  where 
there  is  the  largest  measure  of  human  freedom 
and  personal  initiative.  This  decline  of  infant- 
baptism  has  been  paralleled  by  an  equally  rapid 
growth  in  the  practice  of  faith-baptism  as  an 
organized  movement  in  the  form  of  churches. 
Those  who  practice  faith-baptism  only  now  num- 
ber millions.  Naturally  only  their  communicants 
are  counted,  but  of  these  there  are  eight  or  ten 
millions.  If  the  population  which  belongs  to  them 
should  be  included  they  number  twenty  to  twenty- 
five  millions.  This  means  that  something  like 
one  in  every  twenty-five  of  the  nominal  Christian 
population  of  the  world  is  directly  or  indirectly 
supporting  faith-baptism  as  against  infant-bap- 
tism. Let  it  be  remembered  that  nearly  all  of 
this  has  been  gained  in  a  century  and  a  quarter 
against  the  mightiest  institutions  of  human  soci- 
ety and  the  greatness  of  the  success  can  be  appre- 
ciated. 


The  Outlook  for  Faith-Baptism.  YJ\ 

Moreover,  the  forces  which  have  contributed 
to  this  growth  during  this  period  are  still  opera- 
tive, and  some  of  them  at  least  are  likely  to  be 
accelerated.  The  effects  of  the  world  war  will 
not  be  fully  known  for  a  century  or  two,  but  it 
is  likely  to  contribute  to  the  growth  of  democracy 
and  personal  freedom  in  the  lands  of  Eastern 
Europe  and  Western  Asia,  and  may  bring  on  a 
great  revival  of  religion.  The  Slavs  of  South- 
eastern Europe  have  been  adopting  faith-baptism 
in  large  numbers  for  years,  and  the  establishment 
of  real  freedom  in  these  regions  would  probably 
prepare  the  way  for  a  tremendous  outburst  of 
Baptist  growth.  During  the  last  half  century 
there  has  been  good  growth  of  Baptist  sentiment 
among  the  Teutons  and  Hungarians.  This  is 
likely  to  be  accelerated.  Every  great  upheaval 
of  human  society  in  modern  times,  which  has 
forced  men  to  consider  fundamentals  again  has 
witnessed  a  revival  of  anti-pedobaptist  sentiment. 
Examples  of  this  effect  are  the  Reformation, 
when  the  Anabaptists  arose  to  such  great  power ; 
the  period  of  the  English  Revolution,  in  which 
the  English  Baptists  made  the  first  deep  impres- 
sion on  English  life;  the  American  colonial 
period,  in  which  American  Baptists  began  their 
work;  the  intellectual,  religious  and  political  up- 
heavals of  the  eighteenth  century,  culminating  in 
America  in  the  Revolution  and  the  establishment 
of  constitutional  freedom,  which  was  followed  in 
England  and  America  by  the  era  of  greatest  pros- 
perity for  anti-pedobaptists.      If    this    principle 


172  Infant-Baptism. 

continues  to  operate,  there  ought  to  be  a  tremend- 
ous outburst  of  anti-pedobaptist  sentiment  on 
the  continent  of  Europe  at  the  conclusion  of  this 
great  war.  Surely  all  social  and  political  institu- 
tions are  being  shaken  to  their  foundations.  Men 
on  the  battlefields  and  their  suffering  friends  at 
home  are  being  thrown  back  upon  the  fundamen- 
tals of  life  and  death.  Ecclesiastical  traditions 
are  in  the  melting  pot,  men  are  seeking  the  spir- 
itual realities  which  will  sustain  them  in  the  ter- 
rible hours  of  strife  when  they  look  death  in  the 
face. 

These  and  other  considerations  lead  anti-pedo- 
baptists  to  cherish  a  hopeful  expectation  of 
progress  for  spiritual  religion  and  faith-baptism. 
They  believe  the  forces  that  have  cooperated  to 
produce  the  successes  of  the  last  century  will  con- 
tinue to  operate  with  accelerated  power.  They 
confidently  expect  a  further  decline  and  possibly 
an  ultimate  disappearance  of  infant-baptism  from 
the  evangelical  pedobaptist  bodies.  Their  exist- 
ence and  prosperity  in  no  way  rest  upon  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  practice  of  infant-baptism.  It  is 
probable,  indeed  it  is  almost  certain,  that  their 
growth  would  be  accelerated  by  the  abandonment 
of  this  practice  which  so  many  of  their  members 
neglect  or  disapprove. 

On  the  other  hand,  infant-baptism  is  essential 
to  the  existence  of  the  two  great  Catholic 
churches.  Its  abolition  would  bring  their  dissolu- 
tion. It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  infant-baptism 
will  continue  as  long  as  they  exist.    Should  they 


The  Outlook  for  Faith-Baptism.  I73 

ever  become  evangelical,  which  is  wholly  improb- 
able, it  might  then  be  eliminated  from  them.  The 
continuance  and  prosperity  of  evangelical  reli- 
gion is  bound  up  with  faith-baptism.  Among  the 
unevangelical  pedobaptists,  infant-baptism  is  al- 
most as  necessary  and  is  not  likely  to  be  aban- 
doned. 

Advocates  of  faith-baptism  need  not  be  san- 
guine of  a  speedy  triumph.  Ecclesiastical  tradi- 
tion is  powerful  and  belief  in  the  magical  effects 
of  baptism  is  mighty.  It  required  centuries  for 
infant-baptism  to  establish  itself  in  the  Christian 
church;  it  will  probably  require  longer  to  elimi- 
nate it.  Direct  attack  upon  the  custom  probably 
accomplishes  little;  direct  advocacy  of  faith-bap- 
tism as  the  duty  of  every  regenerated  man  is  a 
powerful  scriptural  appeal.  Anti-pedobaptists 
will  continue  to  do  both,  but  they  will  not  become 
impatient  and  censorious,  believing  that  God  is 
working  in  a  large  way  to  restore  throughout  the 
earth  the  spiritual  salvation  and  the  faith-baptism 
of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  a  strange  thing  that  "one  baptism,"  which 
Paul  regarded  as  a  bond  of  Christian  union  along 
with  "one  Lord,  one  faith  .  .  .  one  God  and 
Father  of  all"  (Eph.  4:5),  should  be  one  of 
the  main  causes  of  a  divided  Christendom  today. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  divergence  in  the  views  and 
practice  of  baptism  divide  Christian  men  and 
churches  more  hopelessly  and  fundamentally  than 
any  other  expression  of  religion.  If  all  Christen- 
dom could  once  more  be  united  on  scriptural  bap- 


174  Infant-Baptism. 

tism,  all  other  serious  differences  would  disappear, 
the  spirituality  and  evangelical  character  of  Chris- 
tianity would  be  safe  and  a  new  era  of  harmoni- 
ous action  among  the  Christian  forces  of  the  world 
would  be  at  hand.  Infant-baptism  more  than 
anything  else  stands  as  the  chief  barrier  to  Chris- 
tian union.  It  is  a  second  baptism,  an  alien  ele- 
ment, introduced  into  Christianity  from  the  out- 
side, which  not  only  separates  its  advocates  from 
the  rest  of  the  Christian  world,  but  also  divides 
them  among  themselves.  It  deprives  evangelical 
pedobaptists  of  the  consciousness  of  scriptural 
support,  constantly  embarrasses  them  in  its  de- 
fense, weakens  the  allegiance  of  many  of  their 
members,  aligns  them  with  the  Catholic  churches, 
introduces  an  element  of  artificiality  and  unreality 
into  religion,  and  banishes  in  large  measure  faith- 
baptism  which  was  the  "one  baptism"  commanded 
by  our  Lord,  both  their  Lord  and  ours.  There 
is  no  escaping  these  facts.  Is  it  too  much  to  hope 
that  evangelical  pedobaptists  will  sometime  return 
to  scriptural  baptism?  Surely  the  Lord  must 
have  known  what  was  best  for  his  children  and 
the  work  of  the  kingdom  in  the  matter  of  the  bap- 
tism he  approved  and  himself  received.  If  this 
be  so,  why  will  those  who  love  the  Lord  persist 
in  substituting  something  else  for  the  baptism  he 
commanded  ?  And  by  the  testimony  of  their  own 
best  scholars  they  are  substituting.  Moreover,  they 
are  substituting  something  which  is  not  neutral 
or  negative,  but  which  in  its  total  effects  has  been 
and  still  is  one  of  the  most  baneful  influences  in 


The  Outlook  for  Faith-Baptism.  175 

Christian  history.  The  abandonment  of  infant- 
baptism  would  greatly  strengthen  all  the  evan- 
gelical pedobaptist  churches  and  would  destroy 
those  that  are  not  evangelical,  and  would  be  a 
tremendous  step  towards  the  unification  of  the 
evangelical  forces  of  Christendom.  The  advo- 
cates of  faith-baptism  are,  as  they  believe,  con- 
tending for  the  essence  of  Christianity,  the  essen- 
tial Protestant  principle,  which  is  necessary  to  the 
life  of  all  evangelical  bodies.  They  believe  that 
infant-baptism  is  everywhere  unscriptural,  that  it 
is,  as  held  by  most  of  its  advocates,  anti-scriptural, 
that  it  has  been  historically  and  in  practice  most 
hurtful.  They  know  it  nullifies,  for  all  who  have 
received  it,  the  command  of  Christ  that  every 
believer  should  be  baptized.  They  pray  the  Fa- 
ther to  hasten  the  day  when  there  shall  be  "one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Fa- 
ther of  all,  who  is  over  all,  and  through  all,  and 
in  all." 


Date  Due 


FE2    *53 


DEC  1  9  'SB 


